The Effects of 'Brain Gym' as a General Education Intervention: Improving Academic Performance and Behaviors

Dissertation

Submitted to Northcentral University

Graduate Faculty of the School of Education in Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree of

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

by

Sherri S. Nussbaum

Prescott Valley, Arizona May, 2010

UMI Number: 3411166

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,

a note will indicate the deletion.

UMT Dissertation Publishing

UMI 3411166 Copyright 2010 by ProQuest LLC.

All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway

P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346

Copyright 2010

Sherri S. Nussbaum

APPROVAL

The Effects of 'Brain Gym' as a General Education Intervention: Improving Academic Performance and Behaviors

by

Sherri S. Nussbaum

Approved by:

(TXf^ri Chair: Linda Collins, Ed.D.

r **) 9-o/Q Date

Member: Shad Bailey, Ed.D., Ph.D.

Member: Faith Andreasen, Ph.D.

Certified by

School Chair: Dermis Lessard, Ph.D 6/?/&*)

Date

ABSTRACT

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act {IDEA) and No Child Left Behind (NCLB)

now mandate that all at-risk students receive empirical, scientific research-based

interventions. 'Brain Gym' is a movement-based program designed to address a diverse

range of students' academic and behavior needs by promoting whole-brain learning.

However, the scientific research base supporting 'Brain Gym' is limited and findings are

inconclusive. The goal of this study was to evaluate the effects of Dennison's 26 'Brain

Gym' movements as a tier-one Response to Intervention (Rtl) and a class-wide general

education intervention on primary grade-level students' (the at-risk population as well as

the overall population) academic performance and behaviors as measured by the TAKS

Reading, TAKS Math, and BASC-II instruments. To accomplish this goal, an eight-month

quantitative posttest experimental study with random assignment of 364 second through

sixth grade students to classrooms and random assignment of participating classrooms to

control and experimental groups was implemented in a school district located in East

Texas. Based on two-tailed independent sample t tests at a 95% confidence level

(a = .05), at-risk students demonstrated statistically significant gains in reading,

t(66) = -2.13,p = .04, and math, t(7l) - -2.42,/? = .02, after receiving 'Brain Gym' as a

tier-one Rtl academic intervention. Similarly, students who received 'Brain Gym' as a

general education classroom management strategy demonstrated statistically significant

improvements in maladaptive behaviors (e.g., aggression, hyperactivity, inattention,

depression, anxiety, somatization, and atypicality), t(46) = -2.71, p = .01, and adaptive

behaviors (e.g., social skills, functional communication, and adaptability),

t(46) = -2.95, p = .01. Therefore, educators may confidently use 'Brain Gym' as a

i i i

tier-one Rtl reading and math intervention and a general education classroom

management strategy for primary grade-level students. Further research is needed to

explore the efficacy of 'Brain Gym' with secondary and special population students.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to acknowledge Dr. Linda Collins, dissertation chair, Dr. Faith

Andreasen, and Dr. Shad Bailey, committee members, for their support and guidance

throughout the dissertation processes. I would also like to thank Dr. Shelly Marmion,

professor at the University of Texas at Tyler, for advice related to the statistical

procedures utilized in this study. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the

school district, teachers, and students who faithfully participated in the activities

necessary to carry out this eight-month study. Finally, I would like to express a special

thank you to my loving family members for their support and prayers.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES viii

LIST OF FIGURES ix

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 Background 3 Statement of the Research Problem 6 Purpose of the Study 7 Theoretical Framework 8 Research Questions 11 Research Hypotheses 11 Nature of the Study 13 Significance of the Study 14 Definition of Terms 15 Summary 18

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 19 Student Academic Performance 21 Inclusion of Students with Special Needs in Performance Measures 23 Student Behaviors 24 Schedules: Movement versus Instruction 26 Biological Effects of Movement on Cognition and Behavior 29 Movement and the Quest for Educational Excellence 33 Midline Movements, Reflex Integration, Learning, and Behaviors 42 'Brain Gym' and Student Academic Performance and Behaviors 46 'Brain Gym' within the Realities of a School Setting 52 Problems with the Research Base 58 Summary 59

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 62 Research Method and Design 65 Participants 66 Materials 68 Operational Definition of Variables 73 Procedures 77 Data Collection, Processing, and Analysis 81 Methodological Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations 85 Ethical Concerns 88 Summary 89

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS 91 Fidelity of the 'Brain Gym' Intervention 92 Overview of Students' Academic Performance 93 Effects of'Brain Gym' on Students Academic Performance 94 Description of the Groups Participating in 'Brain Gym' Academic Measures 94

VI

Results o f Brain Gym' as an Academic Intervention 97 Overview of Students' Behaviors 101 Effects of'Brain Gym' on Students' Behaviors 102 Descriptions of Groups Participating in 'Brain Gym' Behavior Measures 103 Results of 'Brain Gym' as a Behavior Intervention 106 Summary 115

CHAPTER 5: IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND CONCLUSIONS... 117 Implications 118 Recommendations 124 Conclusions 127

REFERENCES 128

APPENDIXES 135 Appendix B Key Math Components 137 Appendix D Narrowband and Broadband Maladaptive Behaviors 140 Appendix E Three Day Rotation Plan (Meders, 2000) 142 Appendix F IRB Application 143 Appendix G Informed Consent for School District 149 Appendix H Informed Consent for Teachers 151 Appendix I Information Letter for Parents 154 Appendix J Information Letter for Students 155

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Statistics for 2008 TAKS Measures 97 Table 2 Group Statistics for 2009 TAKS Change Score Measures 98 Table 3 Statistics for 2009 TAKS Change Score Measures 100 Table 4 BASC-II Validity Scale 103 Table 5 Statistics for 2008 BASC-II Measures 106 Table 6 Group Statistics for 2009 BASC-II Change Score Measures 107 Table! Statistics 2009 BASC-II Change Score Measures 110

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Definition of variables 74 Figure 2. Conceptual model for the control group quantitative experimental design 74 Figure 3. Flowchart of the research procedures 78

IX

1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

In 1983, the National Commission on Excellence in Education published a report

entitled 'A Nation at Risk' that sounded an alarm initiating educational reform across the

United States (Guthrie & Springer, 2004). As a result, federal and state government

agencies have passed numerous mandates promoting educational reform. Consequently,

educators are struggling to meet the needs of students, comply with national and state

mandates, and alleviate national and parental concerns.

In the 1980's, Dr. Paul and Gail Dennison initiated research to identify effective

interventions to help individuals with learning and behavior difficulties and improve

academic achievement for at-risk students (Brain Gym International, 2008). In order to

accomplish this, Dennison and Dennison pooled information from multidisciplinary

fields such as human developmental biology, education, neuro-biology, optical therapy,

and physical and occupational therapy. As a result of the Dennison's research, Brain

Gym International was founded in 1987 (Brain Gym International, 2008). By 1991,

'Brain Gym' was endorsed by the National Learning Foundation as one of twelve

exemplary educational programs (Baker, 2005). 'Brain Gym' is an educational

kinesiology program that is currently utilized in 80 nations; 'Brain Gym' manuals and

texts have been translated into 40 languages (Brain Gym International, 2008).

Dennison's research, the wide-spread endorsement of 'Brain Gym', and the

existence of Brain Gym International Institute suggest that 'Brain Gym' may be a viable

component in addressing the nation's educational concerns. However, educators must

now look to empirical, scientific research-based interventions in the quest to promote

student excellence within the Response to Intervention (Rtl) framework (Fuchs & Fuchs,

2

2007). Research on 'Brain Gym' is limited, available studies have questionable research

integrity, and the results have not provided conclusive or consistent findings (Hyatt,

2007). Given these circumstances, more research is needed in order for teachers to

confidently and legally use 'Brain Gym' in the public school general education setting as

an academic and behavior intervention for struggling students.

In this chapter, the efficacy of 'Brain Gym' as an academic and behavior

intervention within the realities of the school environment will be explored. First, an

overview of the current circumstances facing the field of education will be presented. In

this section, an explanation of how two federal laws, No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and

Individuals with Disabilities Act of 2004 (IDEA 2004), have resulted in setting high

standards and placed heavy demands on the nation's educational field will be discussed.

The ability of 'Brain Gym' to address these demands will also be presented in this

section. The research problem is summarized in the second section of this chapter and is

followed by an explanation of how the results of this study should help support educators

in the quest for educational excellence for all students. The theoretical and conceptual

premises underlying 'Brain Gym', as well as current controversies regarding the

program's applicability to schools, will be discussed in the next section. The subsequent

two sections will provide the reader with the research questions and hypothesis used in

this study. The seventh and eighth sections of this chapter will present the nature and

significance of this study. The ninth section will provide the reader with definitions of

key operational terms used in this paper. Finally, the key points of this chapter will be

summarized.

3

Background

Federal mandates in NCLB and the IDEA 2004 are setting high expectations for

student performance and holding educators responsible for making them a reality (Fuchs

& Fuchs, 2007). These two federal laws have changed how educators may approach and

measure student performance. The NCLB mandates outline lofty goals for all students

and holds schools accountable for meeting these goals (Yen & Henderson, 2002).

Furthermore, IDEA 2004 requires educators to utilize research-based interventions when

addressing academic and behavior concerns (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2007).

The NCLB act requires states to provide measurements indicating that students

meet minimum proficiency in reading and mathematics through standardized

assessments. According to NCLB, states are required to test public school students in the

third through eighth grades and once in high school in reading and math. All students,

including students qualifying for special education services, must receive current grade

placement instruction and assessments. Thus, all students must be tested using

grade-level state assessments. The NCLB act mandates that all students must be

performing at a proficient level or higher on state assessments by 2014 (Yen &

Henderson, 2002). Furthermore, schools must make adequate annual progress towards

closing gaps between proficient performance on state assessments and actual student

performance. The federal government defines proficiency based on national assessment

cut-off scores (Pellegrino, 2007). National proficiency cut-off scores tend to be much

higher than state cut-off scores. National standards indicate more than 70% of the

students in the U. S. are performing below a 'Proficient' academic level (Pellegrino,

2007).

4

State assessments are considered high-stakes tests because major decisions

depend upon their results (Defer, 2002). For third, fifth, and eighth grade students,

promotion to the next grade depends on their scores. For high school seniors, graduation

is dependent on state assessment scores. Results of these assessments are published and

influence the future employment of educators. State assessment results are also used by

schools to gauge whether adequate yearly progress is being made. Furthermore, Title 1

schools not meeting these standards may lose federal funding (Yen & Henderson, 2002).

Given the seriousness of the situation, educators are searching for effective ways to

improve student performance on state reading and math tests.

One of the most significant changes in IDEA 2004 was adding mandated

guidelines that address the needs of at-risk students not eligible for special education

services (Smith, 2005). These guidelines require research-based educational interventions

and supports be implemented when students begin to show signs of struggling

academically or behaviorally (Smith, 2005). The IDEA 2004 act refers to this process as

'Response to Intervention' (Rtl).

Rtl seeks to prevent student failure and thereby reduce the number of students

identified for special education services (Smith, 2005). The Rtl process occurs in the

general education setting and uses general education resources rather than those of

special education (Smith, 2005). However, IDEA 2004 does allow school districts to

allocate 15% of special education funds to general education purposes such as

supplementing Rtl services (Prasse, 2006). The act mandates that Rtl be implemented in

schools nationwide. Rtl guidelines require all struggling students to receive

research-based interventions (Smith, 2005). In other words, when students begin to

5

struggle with academic tasks or school behaviors, interventions that are both effective for

meeting specific student needs and are grounded in research must be implemented.

The Rtl model has three levels of interventions. Tier-one includes class-wide

interventions designed to meet the needs of 80% of the students who are struggling

(Baker, Kamphaus, Home & Winsor, 2006). Tier-two and tier-three provide more intense

interventions designed to meet the needs of the remaining 20% of students with moderate

to severe concerns. Teachers report that 54% of the students in public schools are at-risk

of failing (Baker et al., 2006). Furthermore, at-risk schools report that over 59% of the

student body has moderate to severe academic and behavior concerns. With so many

students struggling in public schools, the requirements of Rtl will soon deplete the

resources (e.g., staff and funds available for Rtl services) of many school districts (Baker

et al., 2006). The magnitude of the problem demands effective, large-scale interventions

that will meet the diverse needs of struggling students.

Pressure is mounting for educators and students to achieve more and more. In

order to meet national and state mandates, educators are looking more closely at

educational research involving the actual impact of in-school interventions. Obstacles

facing educators include a limited base of educational research regarding the efficacy of

available interventions, limited information on how to efficiently implement

interventions, and difficulty maintaining the fidelity of the intervention over time (Glover

& DiPerna, 2007). School districts are looking for research to address these problems.

Although the educational research base has been growing over the past several years,

many questions remain unanswered (Glover & DiPerna, 2007).

6

Current research is revealing the positive influence that physical exercise has on

cognitive functioning and behaviors (Walker, 2008). 'Brain Gym' is a movement-based

program developed by the founders of the Brain Gym Institute, Paul and Gail Dennison

(Hannaford, 2005). 'Brain Gym' movements are designed to improve cognitive and

behavior performance across diverse populations. The existence of an established Brain

Gym Institute that provides training and licensing for 'Brain Gym' instructors, as well as

national and international use of the program indicates that there may be merit to these

claims. However, research on 'Brain Gym' is limited; available studies have questionable

research integrity, and results have not provided conclusive or consistent findings (Hyatt,

2007). There is little sound research available to guide school administrators, regional

educational service centers, and teachers interested in implementing 'Brain Gym' in the

school setting (Hyatt, 2007). The research conducted during this study examined the

efficacy of 'Brain Gym' and explored practical ways of introducing 'Brain Gym'

activities in today's school environment.

Statement of the Research Problem

Public school educators report that 54% of public school students are at-risk of

failing due to academic and behavior difficulties based on state defined minimum

standards (Baker et al., 2006). Federal mandates in NCLB have redefined minimum

standards, bringing the at-risk portion of the nation's public school students to 70%

(Pellegrino, 2007). According to IDEA 2004, empirical, scientific research-based

interventions must be available to all at-risk students (Baker et al., 2006). The purpose of

this mandate is to effectively address learning and behavior concerns in the general

education setting and reduce the number of students referred for special education

7

services. However, the growing number of at-risk students taxes the ability of most

public schools to adequately meet the demands of Rtl, even with the additional allocation

of 15% of special education funds (Baker et al., 2006). Furthermore, the majority of

at-risk students demonstrate multiple academic and behavior concerns (Glover &

DiPerna, 2007). Unfortunately, the research base for effective interventions is limited and

most available research-based interventions are designed to meet highly specific needs,

such as reading comprehension or reading fluency rather than multiple academic and

behavior concerns (Glover & DiPerna, 2007). For these reasons, educators are searching

for effective scientific research-based interventions to improve student academic

performance and behaviors that are capable of addressing a diverse range of student

needs.

Dennison proposes that 'Brain Gym' movement-based programs can effectively

meet the diverse needs of students struggling with academics and behavior problems with

only minimal loss of instruction time (Brain Gym International, 2008). Therefore, 'Brain

Gym' may be a viable component to address many of these educational needs.

Unfortunately, the current body of research does not provide conclusive support for the

claims of the Brain Gym Institute (Hyatt, 2007). This limits educators' ability to utilize

'Brain Gym' as an intervention in the Rtl process. This information identifies a need for

scientifically-based research evaluating the efficacy of 'Brain Gym' as an academic and

behavior intervention.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this quantitative experimental study was to examine the effects of

Dennison's 26 'Brain Gym' movements as a tier-one Rtl and a class-wide general

8

education intervention on primary grade-level students' (the at-risk as well as the overall

population) academic performance and behaviors as measured by the TAKS Reading,

TAKS Math, and BASC-II instruments (Dennison, 2003). In order to accomplish this goal,

a posttest experimental design with random assignment of students to classroom and

random assignment of participating classrooms to control and experimental groups

utilizing two-tailed independent samples t test for data analysis was selected. The Three

Day Rotation Plan, a curriculum incorporating all 26 'Brain Gym' movements, was

implemented as the intervention (Meders, 2000). A sample of 126 participants was

estimated to be adequate given the study's design, with an alpha of .05 and a target of

80% power (Lenth, 2009). However, a sample size greater than 126 was utilized in order

to offset mortality of participants, which was a possible threat to validity based on the

longevity of the study (Gall & Gall, 2007). For convenience, participants were selected

from a public school district located in East Texas. This design meets the stringent

federal research guidelines set forth in IDEA 2004 (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2007). This study

may help educators determine if 'Brain Gym' can provide an essential service as a

classroom management and academic intervention for the at-risk as well as the overall

populations of primary grade-level students within the general education setting and Rtl

framework.

Theoretical Framework

Dr. Paul Dennison introduced 'Brain Gym' and is the founder of the Brain Gym

Institute (Brain Gym International/Educational Kinesiology Foundation, 2008). Dennison

merged information from learning, applied kinesiology, and neuropsychology theories to

develop 'Brain Gym'. 'Brain Gym' is derived from the fundamental premise that learning

9

occurs as humans receive sensory stimuli and initiate movement (Hannaford, 2005). The

'Brain Gym' program includes 26 specific movements that activate the brain and body

for learning (Dennison, 2003).

Three major neuropsychology theories had significant influences on Dennison's

development of'Brain Gym': the Doman-Delacato theory of development, cerebral

dominance theory, and perceptual-motor training theory (Hyatt, 2007). According to the

Doman-Delacato theory of development, learning problems result when children have

unintergraded primary reflexes due to skipping motor developmental milestones, such as

crawling. The cerebral dominance theory proposes that dyslexia is a result of mixed

cerebral dominance. Perceptual-motor training theory emphasizes that learning

difficulties are a result of inefficient integration of visual, auditory, and motor skills.

Based upon these theoretical neuropsychological concepts, Dennison concluded that

movement can be used to promote neural pathway connections and mylination

throughout the sensory, intermediate, and motor neurons (Hannaford, 2005). This has

numerous potential benefits such as reflex and sensory integration, increased capacity for

cognitive functions (including learning and memory) and more efficient communication

throughout the human nervous system (Hannaford, 2005).

Dennison also relied heavily on theory from the field of applied kinesiology that

resulted from studies of the effects of midline movements on learning (Dennison, 2003).

Midlines are where two perceptual fields meet; there are three midlines in the human

body (Dennison, 2003). Researchers have found that learning has a direct relationship

with difficulty crossing these midlines (Surburg & Easen, 1993, 1999; Corso, 1997).

Studies also indicate that the ability to move across each midline is uniquely related to

10

specific academic tasks and behaviors. Furthermore, the findings of these studies

established that when individuals with learning difficulties participated in midline

movements, their cognitive skills and ability to cross midlines improved (Surburg &

Easen, 1999). Dennison used the results of midline movement studies to design specific

movement-based interventions which meet the unique academic and behavioral needs of

students. 'Brain Gym' movements promote whole-brain and body learning through using

movements that provide frequent opportunities to cross midlines (Dennison, 2003).

Dr. Dennison proposed that 'Brain Gym' movements have the potential to address

a wide range of academic and behavior concerns (Dennison, 2003). There is a substantial

amount of sound studies indicating that physical activity has positive effects on the brain

and cognitive functioning (Hillman et al., 2008). However, little is known regarding the

type, frequency, or intensity of physical activities that are most efficient and effective in

promoting cognition and brain health (Hillman et al., 2008). Research regarding 'Brain

Gym' is conflicting and inconclusive (Hyatt, 2007). In order to design effective

movement-based interventions, more research will need to be conducted regarding the

effects of specific movements on activities of the brain (Hillman et al., 2008).

Due to IDEA 2004 and NCLB and the large number of at-risk students, educators

are searching for empirically sound research-based interventions to address students'

academic and behavior concerns (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2007). However, the educational

research base is limited (Baker et al., 2006). Furthermore, most research-based

educational interventions are highly specific and appropriate for addressing only 20% of

the at-risk student population's needs (Baker et al., 2006). Given the current demand for

effective interventions that are capable of meeting a wide range of academic and behavior

11

concerns, the wide-spread endorsement of 'Brain Gym' for meeting a diverse range of

student concerns and the limited educational research base indicates further research is

needed to validate 'Brain Gym' as an academic and behavior intervention within schools.

Research Questions

In order to address these needs, four research questions were considered:

1. What is the effect of Dennison's 26 'Brain Gym' movements as a general

education class-wide intervention on primary grade-level (third through sixth grades)

student academic performance as measured by the TAKS Reading and TAKS Math tests?

2. What is the effect of Dennison's 26 'Brain Gym' movements as a general

education tier-one intervention within the Rtl process on primary grade-level (third

through sixth grades) at-risk student academic performance as measured by the TAKS

Reading and TAKS Math tests?

3. What is the effect of Dennison's 26 'Brain Gym' movements as a general

education class-wide intervention on primary grade-level (second through sixth grades)

student behaviors as measured by the BASC-II teacher behavior rating instrument?

4. What is the effect of Dennison's 26 'Brain Gym' movements as a general

education tier-one intervention within the Rtl process on primary grade-level (second

through sixth grades) at-risk student behaviors as measured by the BASC-II teacher

behavior rating instrument?

Research Hypotheses

A quantitative experimental design with random assignment of students to

classrooms and participating classrooms to experimental and control groups was used to

12

conduct this study. Therefore, each research question was answered by testing the

associated null hypothesis. The research hypotheses for this study are listed below:

Hlo: Dennison's 26 'Brain Gym' movements, as a general education class-wide

intervention, have no significant effect on primary grade-level (third through sixth

grades) student academic performance as measured by the TAKS Reading and TAKS

Math tests.

Hla: Dennison's 26 'Brain Gym' movements, as a general education class-wide

intervention, have a significant effect on primary grade-level (third through sixth grades)

student academic performance as measured by the TAKS Reading and TAKS Math tests.

H2o: Dennison's 26 'Brain Gym' movements, as a general education tier-one

intervention within the Rtl process, have no significant effect on primary grade-level

(third through sixth grades) at-risk student academic performance as measured by the

TAKS Reading and TAKS Math tests.

H2a: Dennison's 26 'Brain Gym' movements, as a general education tier-one

intervention within the Rtl process, have a significant effect on primary grade-level (third

through sixth grades) at-risk student academic performance as measured by the TAKS

Reading and TAKS Math tests.

H3o: Dennison's 26 'Brain Gym' movements, as a general education class-wide

intervention, have no significant effect on primary grade-level (second through sixth

grades) student behaviors as measured by the BASC-II teacher behavior rating instrument.

H3a: Dennison's 26 'Brain Gym' movements, as a general education class-wide

intervention, have a significant effect on primary grade-level (second though sixth

grades) student behaviors as measured by the BASC-II teacher behavior rating instrument.

13

H4o: Dennison's 26 'Brain Gym' movements, as a general education tier-one

intervention within the Rtl process, have no significant effect on primary grade-level

(second through sixth grades) at-risk student behaviors as measured by the BASC-II

teacher behavior rating instrument.

H4a: Dennison's 26 'Brain Gym' movements, as a general education tier-one

intervention within the Rtl process, have a significant effect on primary grade-level

(second though sixth grades) at-risk student behaviors as measured by the BASC-II

teacher behavior rating instrument.

Nature of the Study

A quantitative experimental design, with random assignment of students to

classrooms and participating classrooms to experimental and control groups, was used for

this study to explore the effects of 'Brain Gym' movements on primary grade-level

students' academic performance and behaviors. The 'Brain Gym' Three Day Rotation

Plan was implemented as the independent variable. The dependent variables included

reading performance (comprehension, vocabulary, phonemic awareness, phonemes, and

fluency), math performance (problem solving skills, math reasoning, and critical

thinking), adaptive behaviors (adaptability, social skills, leadership, functional

communication, and study skills), and maladaptive behaviors (hyperactivity, aggression,

conduct problems, anxiety, depression, somatization, atypicality, withdrawal, learning

problems, and attention problems). Dependent variables were measured with the TAKS

Reading and Math tests and BASC-II behavior instrument. Independent samples

two-tailed / tests were used to determine if students who received the 'Brain Gym'

intervention demonstrated significant improvements on the TAKS Reading and Math tests

14

and BASC-II behavior ratings when compared to students who did not receive the

intervention.

Significance of the Study

This study will provide scientific, empirical information about the utility of 'Brain

Gym' in public schools. Previous studies of 'Brain Gym' are limited and show

conflicting results (Hyatt, 2007). Also, the existing body of 'Brain Gym' studies of

student academic performance and behaviors do not meet IDEA 2004 Rtl standards since

they did not employ empirical, scientific research-based designs. Therefore, the use of

'Brain Gym' as an intervention in the Rtl process is currently questionable.

To satisfy IDEA 2004 Rtl research standards, a control group quantitative

experimental research design was selected for this study. The effect of 'Brain Gym'

movements as a general education classroom intervention was analyzed to determine if

any significant effect occurred to the general education primary grade-level student

reading and math performance, or behaviors. The effect of 'Brain Gym' movements as a

tier-one intervention on the performance of students at-risk of failing due to reading,

math, or behavior concerns was also examined.

The results of this study should help educators make informed decisions regarding

'Brain Gym' as a class-wide and tier-one Rtl intervention. Because class-wide and

tier-one interventions are implemented in the general education classroom, and tier-one

interventions are designed to meet all but 20% of at-risk students' needs, the majority of

students should benefit from these interventions. Furthermore, 'Brain Gym' is capable of

meeting a wide range of needs, which further increases its potential for helping struggling

15

students (Dennison, 2003). Therefore, the results of this study should indicate if'Brain

Gym' may play a significant role in the quest for educational excellence for all students.

Definition of Terms

Atypicality. Atypicality is the tendency to behave in ways that are considered

odd or immature (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2006).

'Brain Gym'. 'Brain Gym' is an educational movement-based program that

utilizes 26 movements designed to improve cognitive, behavioral, emotional, and

physical performance across diverse populations (Hannaford, 2005).

'Brain Gym' Dimensions. 'Brain Gym' movements are divided into three

dimensions associated with the three midlines found in human bodies: laterality,

centering, and focus (Dennison, 2003).

'Brain Gym' Three Day Rotation Plan. The Three Day Rotation Plan is a lesson

plan that incorporates the use of all 'Brain Gym' movements over a three-day period, in

seven-minute, twice-a-day increments (Meders, 2000).

Centering Dimension. The centering dimension consists of 'Brain Gym'

movements that require crossing the top-bottom midline (Dennison, 2003).

Focus Dimension. Focus dimension includes movements that require crossing

over the front-back midline (Dennison, 2003).

Frontal Midline. The frontal midline is a vertical line separating the front and

back sides of the body (Dennison, 2003; Tyldesley, 1989; VanDeGraff, 1984).

Laterality Dimension. The laterality dimension includes 'Brain Gym' movements

that require crossing over the right-left midline (Dennison, 2003).

16

Midlines. The human body has three midlines: sagittal, transverse, and frontal

midlines, where two perceptual fields meet (Dennison, 2003; Tyldesley, 1989;

VanDeGraff, 1984).

Primary (Tier-one Intervention). Primary intervention is supplementary

instruction provided in the general education classroom designed to meet the needs of

80% to 85% of students who are struggling to meet grade-level norms (National

Association of State Directors of Special Education, 2005).

Response to Intervention (Rtl). Response to intervention is a multi-tiered service

delivery model with increasing intensity used in the public school setting to provide

early, effective assistance for struggling students (Shavelson & Towne, 2002).

Sagittal Midline. The sagittal midline is a vertical line separating right and left

sides of the body (Dennison, 2003; Tyldesley, 1989; VanDeGraff, 1984).

Secondary (Tier-two Intervention). Secondary intervention entails more intense,

small group supplementary instruction provided in the general education setting designed

to meet the needs of 15% to 20% of students who continue to struggle to meet grade-level

norms after receiving primary interventions (National Association of State Directors of

Special Education, 2005).

Somatization. Somatization is the tendency to be overly sensitive or to complain

about relatively minor physical problems or discomfort. (Reynolds & Kamphaus,

2006).

Student Adaptive Behaviors. Student adaptive behaviors include activities of daily

living, adaptability, functional communication, social skills, and study skills that are

measurable and based on national norms (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2006).

17

Student Academic Performance. Student academic performance is a measure of

essential knowledge and skills as defined by the state of Texas Education Agency (TEA),

covering core subject areas including language arts, reading, writing, social studies,

mathematics, and science (Texas Education Agency, 2008b).

Student Behaviors. Student behaviors include maladaptive and adaptive behaviors

that are measurable and based on national norms (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2006).

Student Maladaptive Behaviors. Student maladaptive behaviors include

aggression, anxiety, attention problems, atypicality, conduct problems, depression,

hyperactivity, learning problems, somatization, and withdrawal that are measurable and

based on national norms (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2006).

Student Math Academic Performance. Student math academic performance

contains three key components of math established by the National Council of Teachers

of Mathematics (NCTM) to measure students' math, including problem solving, math

reasoning, and critical thinking (NCTM, 2008).

Student Reading Academic Performance. Student reading academic performance

contains five key components of reading established by the National Panel of Reading

(NPR) including phonemes, phonemic awareness, fluency, vocabulary, and

comprehension (National Panel of Reading, 2008).

Tertiary (Tier-three Intervention). Tertiary intervention is intense, individualized

supplementary instruction provided in the general education setting that is designed to

meet the needs of 3% to 6% of at-risk students who continue to struggle after receiving

secondary interventions (National Association of State Directors of Special Education,

2005).

18

Transverse Midline. The transverse midline may be visualized as a horizontal line

at the waist separating the upper and lower half of the body (Dennison, 2003; Tyldesley,

1989; VanDeGraff, 1984).

Summary

Educators are struggling to meet the needs of students, comply with numerous

mandates, and alleviate national and parental concerns (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2007).

Dennison's statements about the potential of the 'Brain Gym' program to meet a diverse

range of students' needs, combined with its widespread endorsement suggest that 'Brain

Gym' could play a part in answering the nation's educational concerns (Brain Gym

Institute, 2008). However, educators must now look to empirical research-based

interventions in their quest to foster student excellence within the Rtl framework (Fuchs

& Fuchs, 2007). Sound 'Brain Gym' research is limited and the studies that are available

give conflicting results regarding the program's efficacy (Hyatt, 2007). More research is

needed before teachers can confidently and legally use 'Brain Gym'. Therefore, a control

group quantitative experimental research design was used to evaluate the effects of

Dennison's 26 'Brain Gym' movements on academic performance and behaviors when

implemented as a general education intervention for primary grade-level students. The

results of this study should indicate if 'Brain Gym' might be viable in the search for

educational excellence in the Rtl process as outlined by IDEA 2004 and NCLB (Fuchs &

Fuchs, 2007). These findings could allow educators to make informed decisions about

applying of 'Brain Gym' within the general education primary grade-level setting.

19

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effect of 'Brain Gym' movements on

primary grade-level student academic performance and behaviors. To assess what is

currently known about this subject, an extensive peer-reviewed literature search was

conducted. The literature review included topics related to the study such as: federal and

state educational assessment/accountability guidelines defining student performance, and

developing student schedules that promote success. The review also included specific

topics related to the effects of movement include: biological effects of movement, effects

of movement on overall student success, the value of specific movements, and studies of

'Brain Gym' programs.

This chapter is organized into nine sections. The first section examines federal

and state educational mandates and incentives promoting educational reform. Literature

revealing how educators define and measure student academic performance and behavior

will be explored. This will include examining how educators are attempting to include

students with special needs in school improvement and accountability measures.

The second section focuses on research investigating the effects of varying the

percent of school time devoted to classroom instruction and movement-based activities

on student performance. These studies include discussions about how teachers value time

in relation to promoting academic performance and classroom management. This

research highlights the effects of movement on state assessment performance.

The third section is devoted to investigating research regarding the biological

effects of movement on cognition, emotions, and behaviors. The biological basis for the

findings of these studies was emphasized in these studies. The third section also includes

20

a comparative analysis of different movement-based programs/regimes to determine if

studies reveal any difference in efficacy based upon variables such as the type, frequency,

intensity, or duration of movements. In addition, the section provides a review of studies

investing the differential effects on student performance based upon integrating frequent

movement breaks with academic instruction, physical fitness, or increases in physical

education class time has differential effects on student performance.

The fifth section focuses on the ability to cross midlines in relation to reflex

integration, learning, behaviors, and optimal human development. Here, a comprehensive

review of research focusing on the three midlines found in humans is presented.

Literature noting the relevance of midline movement studies in relationship to 'Brain

Gym' is emphasized.

Research related to 'Brain Gym' as a school-based intervention is discussed in the

sixth and seventh sections. Literature focusing on the effect of 'Brain Gym' on student

performance and behavior is presented. Reactions of teachers, parents, and students after

implementing 'Brain Gym' as an intervention are also presented. The focus of this

section is to explore whether or not implementing 'Brain Gym' programs as an

intervention in public schools is realistic.

The last section presents a recount of studies highlighting shortcomings of the

current body of research related to 'Brain Gym'. A comprehensive literature review

questioning the validity of the 'Brain Gym' program will be included. In summary, this

chapter should help readers conceptualize what is known about student academic

performance and behaviors, the benefits of movement, and the efficacy of'Brain Gym' in

promoting academic excellence.

21

Student Academic Performance

National and state educational standards and societal norms play a significant role

in identifying and defining acceptable academic performance and school behavior. In

order for states to comply with NCLB and IDEA 2004 federal mandates, each state must

develop and implement academic content standards, assessment measures, and

performance standards (Kohl, McLaughlin, & Nagle, 2006). Standards guide curricula

and define what should be taught, to whom, how, and when. Assessments measure

student mastery of standards and most states utilize state-developed assessments to

measure and report student and school performance. Performance standards identify

content and mastery level considered to be adequate, as well as ranges for higher and

lower levels of performance. This section will provide an overview of research defining

student performance from an educational standpoint. Particular attention was given to

Texas educational policies since Texas was the demographic area of this study.

In order to improve student academic performance, national and state initiatives

have been created to facilitate improvements. According to Texas Education Agency

(TEA), state initiatives have been implemented to support student reading and math

proficiency. The TEA (2008a), reported that their initiatives provide support in the areas

of teacher training, identification of research-based instructional and assessment

materials, parent training and information, and reading and math academic resources for

students.

The TEA (2008a) initiatives have identified specific areas considered essential for

strengthening student reading and math skills. Essential areas for reading include the use

of research-based reading instruction and assessments, providing accelerated reading

instruction for students in first and second grades, and providing parents with information

about supporting reading skills at home. Essential areas for math include early

identification of splinter skills, instructional intervention, instructional support, and

professional development.

The TEA also participated in joint research efforts with national reading and math

panels (i.e., NPR and NCTM) to identify core components of reading and math

performance. Findings of TEA (2008a) and NPR (2008) indicated that student reading

performance depends upon five core components: phonemes, phonics, fluency,

vocabulary, and comprehension (see Appendix 1). The TEA (2008a) and NCTM (2008)

identified three core components related to student math performance including problem

solving skills, math reasoning, and critical thinking (see Appendix 2).

Scope and sequence curriculum guidelines of essential knowledge and skills by

grade-level were developed by TEA (2008a). According to TEA, these guidelines are

referred to as Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS). In order to assess and

monitor student performance of TEKS, the state developed Texas Assessment of

Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) tests (TEA, 2008c).

According to TEA (2008b), there are five basic subject areas included in the

public education curriculum. These include reading, writing, mathematics, science, and

social studies. The TAKS measures student knowledge and skills in these five basic

subject areas in order to determine student proficiency and school ratings (TEA, 2008c).

Reading and math TAKS are administered annually to students in the third through ninth

grades. However, writing, science, and social studies TAKS are administered only to

23

specific grade-levels. Scores are calculated electronically by the state and then sent back

to school districts.

The literature reviewed to this point reveals how educators define and measure

student performance. According to the literature, national and state mandates, state

assessments, reading and math initiatives, and TEKS (for the state of Texas) have

together defined student performance (TEA, 2008c). State assessments (such as the TAKS

used in this study) are considered valid and reliable measures of student performance

(TEA, 2008c).

Inclusion of Students with Special Needs in Performance Measures

Mandates in NCLB and IDEA 2004 promote inclusion of students with special

needs (e.g., emotional, autism spectrum, learning, mental retardation, other health

impairment, and other specified disabilities) in the general education classroom (Kohl,

McLaughlin & Nagle, 2006). The NCLB mandates require educators to teach and assess

all students, including those with special needs, using current grade placement curriculum

objectives (Kohl et al., 2006). Kohl et al. noted that the majority of students with special

needs received instruction and assessment below current grade-level placement before

these mandates. The mandates hold educators responsible for ensuring that these students

meet high expectations.

According to Kohl et al., students with academic or behavior concerns often

received instruction from certified special education teachers, in classes with a low

teacher-to-student ratio and specialized resources and supports. General education

classrooms typically contain a higher number of students and fewer individualized

resources and supports. As a result, both academic and behavior challenges have

increased dramatically, over the past five years, in the general education classrooms

(Kohl et al., 2006).

Federal mandates supporting inclusion have stipulated that special education

teachers provide inclusion support for students struggling in the general education setting

(Kohl et al., 2006). However, even with this added support, the majority of general

education teachers report feeling ill-prepared to handle the academic and behavior

challenges in the public schools (Kohl et al., 2006). Educators are looking for ways to

effectively meet these challenges. The literature in this section emphasizes the urgency

for academic and behavior interventions capable of meeting the needs of students with

special needs.

Student Behaviors

Wilhite, Braten, Frey, and Wilder (2007) conducted a teacher survey to identify

the most common classroom behavior concerns. The ten classroom behavior concerns

most often reported were acting out, aggression, hyperactivity, poor social relations,

defiance, immaturity, poor academic achievement, poor attention span, and inadequate

self-concept (Wilhite et al., 2007). Teachers emphasized that student behaviors have

changed over the past ten years; however, behavior strategies and classroom management

interventions remained relatively unchanged since 1972 (Wilhite et al., 2007). According

to Wilhite et al., teachers expressed frustration over the ineffectiveness of available

techniques and are seeking new ways of managing today's classrooms.

Educational laws passed within the decade and higher rates of students diagnosed

with behavior disorders are a few of the possible explanations for a new variety and

intensity of behavior issues in schools (Wilhite et al., 2007). Other factors, such as

25

changing family norms, have also likely contributed to changes in student behaviors

(Wilhite et al., 2007). The majority of mothers now work outside the home and the

number of single parent families has increased dramatically in recent years. Financial

pressures, limited time, and increased non-parenting responsibilities have left many

families exhausted, with little left over to offer to the children at the end of each day.

Young children not developmentally mature enough to process violence, inappropriate

language, disrespect towards authority, and sexuality are exposed to such behaviors

through the media at unprecedented levels. Further, the number of children diagnosed

with Autism, Attention Deficit/Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD), Conduct Disorder, and

Oppositional Defiant Disorder has increased. Wilhite et al. found these variables have

had a significant impact on classroom behaviors.

Teachers have difficulty teaching in a disruptive classroom environment and

report loss of valuable instruction time addressing student misbehavior (Wilhite et al.,

2007). Wilhite et al. emphasized, federal mandates require teachers to address concerns

with behavior interventions supported by scientific research. Positive behavior strategies

are proactive (rather than reactive), are research-based, and meet Rtl criteria (Wilhite et

al., 2007). Positive, proactive strategies approach misbehavior differently than strategies

used by educators in the past decade (Sprick, Garrison & Howard, 1998). Instead of using

punitive, reactive approaches to behavior management, educators are to respond

positively and proactively.

Discipline and classroom management have historically focused on teacher needs

(e.g., the need for students to listen and remain seated during instruction time) rather than

the child's needs (e.g., the students natural needs to communicate, move, participate, ask

for help, and be active) (Sprick et al., 1998). Focusing on student deficits such as

hyperactivity, inattentiveness, and aggressive behaviors is no longer an acceptable

practice. Educators are to concentrate on student strengths such as being energetic,

verbal, and curious. In other words, the approach to classroom management should flow

from teaching students to meet personal needs in a socially appropriate manner (Sprick et

al., 1998). Dennison (1997) emphasized that 'Brain Gym' allows educators to proactively

address behaviors without the need for diagnosing/labeling children and resorting to

punitive disciplinary approaches.

Kohl et al. (2006) and Wilhite et al. (2007) both observed that the population of

students in the general education classroom has changed dramatically, largely due to

recent federal mandates and changes in society. Given these changes in the general

educational environment, pressure from accountability measures, and mandates requiring

research-based interventions be selected to meet students' needs it is no surprise that

teachers report feeling ill-prepared. Educators are turning to scientific research in an

effort to abide by federal and state mandates, improve student performance, and promote

educational excellence for all students. Unfortunately, the scientific research base

regarding effective academic and behavior intervention is limited. Consequently,

research-based general education interventions need to be identified and developed for

educators to manage classroom behavior and provide academic instruction efficiently and

effectively.

Schedules: Movement versus Instruction

In light of the responsibilities placed on teachers coupled with the academic and

behavior challenges of today's classroom, developing school schedules has become an

area of contention (Tremarche et al., 2007). Educators strive to find the best balance in

the schedule to help children achieve their potential. This section will explore research

related to the ongoing conflict between coveted instructional time and non-instructional

(movement-based) time during school hours in the challenge to maximize student

performance.

Hannaford (1995) conducted a quantitative experimental study to compare the

benefits of instruction time versus time devoted to movement-based activities for student

performance. The study included 500 students and involved an intervention that was

one-hour of movement-based activities per day. In order to accomplish this, the

experimental group's instruction time was reduced by one hour each day. No changes

were made to the control group schedule. Hannaford noted that the control group

therefore received one-hour of additional instruction time per day compared to the

experimental group. At the conclusion of the study, student academic scores were

compared to determine if any significant difference existed between the two groups.

Hannaford reported that the academic scores of the experimental group were significantly

higher than those of the control group. This research supports the concept that increasing

physical activity during the school day improves student academic performance, even

though academic instruction was reduced.

Tremarche et al. (2007) conducted a mixed method qualitative study to investigate

the factors teachers believed most influence student performance on state assessments.

Tremarche et al. found instructional time was perceived as the most important variable.

The researchers pointed out that teachers rated physical movement as making only a

minimal contribution to academic performance. Tremarche et al. remarked that these

28

views have led to less time allotted to physical education, recess, and other physical

activities during the school day in the majority of districts nationwide.

Tremarche et al. (2007) conducted a follow-up, quasi-experimental quantitative

study to explore the effects of reduced time devoted to physical activities during the

school day. The researchers reported that many schools are reducing the time students are

engaged in physical activities, such as physical education, and increasing time devoted to

academic instruction in order improve academic performance. Another topic considered

was how movement affects student academic performance. In order to answer this

question, the researchers compared English and language arts and math state assessment

scores of fourth grade students in two comparable districts that devoted different amounts

of time to physical activities. Both districts provided physical education. However, one

devoted 28 hours per school year, while the other dedicated 56 hours per school year.

According to Tremarche et al.'s (2007) mixed method study, teachers surveyed

reported concern that increased time devoted to physical activity and reduced instruction

time would result in lower academic performance and state assessment scores. However,

when the team completed a quasi-experimental quantitative follow-up study and

compared two similar schools' state assessment scores, the school providing more

physical activity scored higher on state assessment tests. Tremache et al. emphasized that

shifting from instruction time did to physical activity time not result in lower academic

scores but rather significantly increased scores. The researchers cautioned educators

against reducing the time devoted to physical activity in hopes of increasing academic

performance.

In summary, studies conducted by Hall (2007), Tremarche et al. (2007), and

Hannaford (1995), support that student performance improved both academically and

behaviorally when time devoted to physical activity was increased. These studies

emphasize the value of movement to academic performance. This means that educators

concerns about time devoted to movement-based activities in lieu of instructional time is

unwarranted.

Biological Effects of Movement on Cognition and Behavior

There are numerous studies have demonstrated that movement produces

biological changes in the brains of animals and humans (Lui, Chen, & Yu, 2008;

Tremarche, Robinson, & Graham, 2007; Hall, 2007). These researchers used a control

group experimental research design to evaluate the biological effects of movement.

Findings from these studies indicate the observed changes in the brain had positive

effects on cognitive performance, emotional well-being, and behavior.

Animal research allows for direct examination of the effects of physical activity

on the cells of the brain. There are numerous studies of animals investigating the

biological effects of movement. For example, Lui, Chen, and Yu (2008) examined the

biological effects of exercise on learning and memory in mice. Lui et al. proposed that

cognitive functions involve specific proteins and neurological factors in the

hippocampus, the area of the brain which facilitates memory and learning. The findings

indicated that the exercise regime (running on a treadmill) did indeed promote an

increase in specific proteins and neurological factors when the hippocampus region of the

brains of mice was examined. However, Lui et al. emphasized that these findings only

imply that exercise improves learning and memory by up-regulating proteins and

neurological hippocampus factors. Only up-regulation of specific proteins and

neurological hippocampus factors were measured and not learning and memory, so

further research is needed (Lui et al., 2008).

Hillman, Erickson, and Krammer (2008), conducted an extensive literature review

of human and non-human animal studies exploring cognitive functions, physiology of the

brain, and varying amounts of physical activity. According to Hillman et al., non-human

experimental research findings document that physical activity promotes neuroplasticity,

vascularity, production of synapses, neurons, and up-regulation of several neurotropic

factors in the brains of mice. The increased number of blood vessels observed resulted in

more nutrition being delivered to the brain. The greater number of synapses and neurons

seen was believed to allow for more efficient cognitive processing. Hillman et al.

reported that the most consistently reported observations resulting from anatomical

research are increases in cell reproduction and survival in the hippocampus. The

hippocampus region of the brain is associated with learning and memory functions.

Hillman et al. pointed out that these findings have been replicated by numerous

peer-reviewed studies.

According to Hillman and his colleagues' literature review (2008), multiple

experimental studies using neuro-imaging to observe biological functions of the human

brain have documented that physical activity has a positive influence on cognition.

Hillman et al. reported that functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRJ) reveals that

physical activity is positively related to increases in prefrontal and temporal grey matter,

as well as anterior white matter volume, which is associated with human cognitive

performance. Findings also reveal that physical activity had a larger effect on executive

31

control functions when compared to other cognitive processes (Hilman et al., 2008).

Executive control functions include the ability to attend as well as inhibit responses to

stimuli. Participants in these studies demonstrated decreases in behavioral conflict

(Hilman et al., 2008). The findings of these studies indicate that physical activity has

positive effects on cognition as well as behavior in humans.

Human research has also incorporated the use of electroencephalograms to

explore the relationship between physical activity and cognitive functions. Two such

studies using experimental quantitative studies were conducted by Dustman (1990) and

Lardon and Polich (1996). According to their results, alpha, beta, and theta spectral bands

had greater electro-cortical activity in physically active individuals. These findings are

important because spectral frequency has a positive relationship with attentionality,

processing speed, and executive control.

Hall (2007) conducted research investigating the effect of movement on the

production of brain chemistry. He specifically explored the effects of movement on

brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF); the chemical required for neurons in the brain

to communicate with one another and improves retention, understanding, comprehension,

memory, retrieval, and fluency of information. Hall found BDNF production is triggered

by movement. Conversely, sitting for more than 20 minutes depleted (Hall, 2007) the

production of BDNF.

According to Hall (2007), the brain needs oxygen and glucose from nutrients in

order to function. Nutrients are supplied through blood flow and movement increases this

flow. Hall found that increases in blood oxygen delivery to the brain dramatically

enhanced cognitive efficiency. The importance of blood flow to the brain is demonstrated

by the fact that a lack of oxygen-rich blood flow to the brain results in loss of

consciousness within seconds.

Researchers have found that cognitive efficiency is associated with neuron and

cell density in the brain (Hall, 2007). Stress increases the production of Cortisol, a

compound known to kill brain cells and also reduce the body's ability to produce new

ones (Hall, 2007). However, movement regulates Cortisol levels. Movement has also been

found to increases the brain's base-line production of new neuron growth (Hall, 2007).

These findings emphasize that movement reduces stress and increase neuron density in

humans, which influences emotional regulation, behavior, and cognition.

Hall (2007) conducted numerous experimental quantitative studies of the effects

of movement on students. In these studies, academic instruction introducing new

materials was combined with movement-based activities. Students who participated in

these activities demonstrated greater gains in academic performance, reduced stress, and

physical fitness when compared to the control group. Hall explained that for learning to

occur, new information must be engrained in the brain's neural networks. Hall also cited

numerous studies showing that the cerebellum is the area of the brain that processes both

movement and learning. Understanding and retaining new information is improved when

neural links are connected between previously acquired and new information. Hall

reported that that combining known movements with new information improved learning.

Movement recruits sensory fibers that carry impulses from muscles to the brain. These

impulses engrain information in the neural networks of the brain. Hall explained that

when movement is intergraded with exposure to new information, brain activity increases

33

in areas of the brain associated with learning, increasing the engraining process and make

learning more concrete (e.g., less easily forgotten).

Tremarche, Robinson, and Graham's (2007) report that physical movement has

many cognitive, emotional, and behavioral benefits educators should consider. Brain

research, the development of neuroscience, and medical technology substantiate that

physical activity has positive influences on cognitive activities. Tremarche et al. reported

that technologies such as MRI, Positron Emission Tomography (PET), and nuclear

(nMRI) have produced major advances in understanding the biological basis of cognitive

functioning. Results from MRI, PET, and nMRI scans reveal that teaching new

movements to students accesses previously unused parts of the brain. Tremarche et al.

emphasized that movement increases brain neurotransmitters, endorphins, neural network

development, and facilitates transport of oxygen and nourishment to the brain. Increased

neurotransmitters, endorphins, and neural networks promote emotional well-being,

behavior regulation, and cognition efficiency. Advances in medical imaging have

provided greater understanding of the biological basis of cognitive functions and

behaviors. In summary, the body of literature concerning the biological effects of

movement demonstrates positive influences on a numerous biological factors associated

with cognition and behavior (Lui, 2008, Hall, 2007, Tremarcher et al. 2007).

Movement and the Quest for Educational Excellence

As shown above, there is significant research supporting the benefits of

movement on cognition and behaviors. However, it is important to distinguish between

movement-based activities promoting physical fitness (e.g., exercise and sports activities

unusually done in physical education classes) and those promoting brief movement

breaks during instruction time (e.g., 'Brain Gym' and 'Smart Moves'). This section will

review current research that compares the efficacy of physical education and adding

frequent movement breaks with academic instruction in order to determine if a specific

method of movement-based activity is more effective in promoting academic

performance and positive school behaviors.

The relative degree of physical fitness is defined by factors such as body mass

index, muscle mass, endurance, and strength. Martin and Chalmers (2007) conducted a

correlation study to investigate the relationship between physical fitness and academic

performance. The study involved 5,847 students in third through eighth grades, in a

Seattle school district. Student's academic performance was measured with the Iowa

Test of Basic Skills. The President's Challenge, a White House-sponsored program that

encourages all age groups to incorporate activity into their daily lives, was utilized to

measure physical fitness. Findings of this study indicated that physical fitness accounted

for only 3.6% of variance in academic performance (Martin & Chalmers, 2007). In other

words almost all (96.3%) variance in academic performance was not related to students'

physical fitness. The researchers noted that physical fitness is promoted through physical

education and health classes and physical fitness benefits students by improving overall

health and motor skills. However, Martin and Chalmers reported that physical fitness did

not appear to significantly influence academic performance.

Dwyer, Blizzard, and Dean (1996) conducted a study that summarized the results

of two quantitative experiments conducted by Dwyer. The purpose of this study was to

determine the effects of exercise on academic performance and behaviors. The team

referenced Dwyer's original study (1979) and his two-year follow-up study (1983). These

35

two studies were conducted in South Australia by Dwyer with 519 fifth grade students

from seven schools. Three classes from each school were randomly selected and assigned

to one of three groups: control group, skill group, or fitness group. The skill and fitness

groups received different levels of physical exercise, while the control group's daily

school routine was unchanged (Dwyer et al., 1996). Activity for the control group

consisted of 30 minutes of physical education three times per week. The two

experimental groups received different levels of daily physical activity. The skill group

was given 75 minutes of physical activity dispersed in short intervals (10 to 15 minutes)

over the course of the school day. However, the fitness group received one 75-minute

period of intense physical activity daily in order to raise the heart rate and promote

fitness.

The initial 1979 study used a 14-week quantitative experiment to investigate the

effects on student academic performance and behaviors of providing students with

different levels and intervals of physical activity (as described above) throughout the

school day (Dwyer et al., 1983). Data were gathered through pretest and posttest

measures of academic related behaviors, social behaviors, mathematics performance, and

reading performance. The Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behavior (KAB) Child Scale was

selected to measure social and academic work behaviors. Academic performance was

assessed using the Australian Council of Educational Research (ACER) arithmetic and

the GAP Reading Comprehension Test, also developed in Australia. Analysis of

covariance was used to process the data. According to Dwyer et al. (1996), the results of

the 1979 study indicated that even though instruction time was decreased for both

experimental groups by 14%, there were no significant differences between control and

experimental groups academic performance measures over the test period. However, the

exercise groups demonstrated significant improvements in classroom behavior when

compared to the control group.

In 1983 Dwyer's follow-up study using a quantitative experiment to explore the

longitudinal effects of the study initiated in 1978. Academic math and reading

performance indicators for the 1983 study were measured on state-wide examinations.

The KAB Scale was again utilized to measure social and academic work behaviors.

Independent sample t tests were used to determine if group means significantly differed.

The two-year study results did indicate that both experimental groups scored statistically

higher on the state-wide reading and math assessments when compared to the control

group. Dwyer et al. (1996) also reported that the skills and fitness groups' behavior

scores were significantly higher when compared to the control group. The skill group's

academic-related behaviors and social skills had the largest improvements when

compared to the and control groups.

According to Dwyer et al. (1996), the results of these two studies indicate that

dispersing physical activity throughout the day benefits student behaviors more than

providing one period of aerobic physical activity per day. Further, reducing academic

instruction time by 14% per day in order to devote time during the school day to physical

activity did not reduce student academic performance. The researchers concluded that

academic gains at the end of the two-year period were likely due to improvements in

school related behaviors and social skills. The findings of these two studies (Dwyer,

1979; Dwyer, 1983) shed light on the type of movement-based programs that benefit

students most; namely physical activity dispersed throughout the instructional day

(Dwyeretal., 1996).

Hall (2007) conducted a quantitative experiment to explore the effects of frequent

movement breaks on student academic performance and student behaviors. Results

indicated that providing instruction in small intervals with frequent breaks promotes

learning and retention. Hall concluded that integrating physical movement with academic

instruction improves student academic performance, emotional well-being, and

behaviors. Movement breaks help to reduce student stress and decrease disruptive

behaviors. Integration, in this context, simply means combining two or more subjects in

order to help students with different learning styles (e.g., visual, auditory, and

kinesthetic) better understand and retain new information. Hall also reported that

requiring students to sit for more than 20 minutes reduces beneficial compounds and

nutrients in the brain that are necessary for learning. However, integrating movement

with academic instruction that allows for movement (in at least 20-minute intervals) will

maintain adequate chemical and nutrient levels so learning can occur. According to Hall,

integrating movement with academic instruction is an effective, research-based major

teaching intervention.

Classroom management skills are included in teacher preparation curriculums

(Mulrine et al., 2008). However, the number of office referrals, detentions, assignments

to disciplinary units, and out-of-school suspensions has risen over the past few years.

According to Mulrine et al., educators are faced with levels and varieties of misbehaviors

that have not previously been seen in classrooms. For example, they reported that the

38

number of children diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, oppositional

defiant disorder, and conduct disorder has drastically increased.

Mulrine, Prater, and Jenkins (2008) conducted a quantitative experimental study

that examined the effects on students' behaviors and academic performance of integrating

frequent movement-based breaks during daily lessons and transitions. Mulrine et al.

referenced studies that indicate there is a positive influence of movement on spatial

relationship concept formation, development of language, emotional well-being,

attention, and memory. The researchers identified common classroom misbehaviors and

classroom management concerns of teachers. They then examined the effects on students'

behaviors, ADHD symptoms, and academic performance of providing frequent structured

movement breaks during academic instruction and transitions throughout the school day

routine. Pre-intervention and post-intervention data were collected and compared to see

if significant differences in behavior and academic performance existed.

Mulrine et al. (2008) combined instruction and movement with between-subject

transitions and rainy-day activities as a classroom management and teaching strategy.

The research intervention included structured movements described as lesson energizers,

transition exercises, and rainy-day structure activities. Lesson energizers consisted of

10-minute physical activities combined with math, science, language arts, and social

studies instructions. Transition activities were described as routine, structured physical

activities which signal to students that one activity is stopping and a new one is starting.

An example of a transition activity could include a chant combined with hand clapping

and foot stomping patterns telling students that reading lessons are over and it is time to

start math lessons. Rainy-day activities provide students with alternative physical

activities when outdoor recess is not feasible. Rainy-day activities may include physically

active games and movement-based exercises accompanied by music.

This study showed that providing instruction in short intervals improved student

learning. However, classroom instruction time generally consisted of lengthy teacher

instruction in lecture format that required students to learn a large amount of information

and allowed little or no student movement or interaction. Furthermore, Mulrine et al.

observed that student motivation is linked to attention, comprehension, and memory.

Passive instruction (lecture style) reduced the motivation and natural curiosity needed to

enhance learning. The investigators recommended breaking up instruction into short

intervals in order maximize student learning.

The findings of Mulrine's et al. (2008) experiment indicate that alternating

frequent short intervals of structured movement with classroom instruction and transition

times throughout the school day has a positive influence on ADHD behaviors, conduct

and oppositional behaviors, ability to cope with stress, self-image, social skills,

motivation for learning, and overall academic performance. The authors emphasized that

physical activity is a valuable teaching strategy that improves student behaviors,

motivation to learn, and academic performance.

Halla-Poe (2002) utilized the Feldenkrais Method of learning, which relies on

sensory-motor techniques in order to improve brain and body integration and promote

learning for students with emotional and behavior challenges. Educators incorporating

the Feldenkrias Method embed movement into instruction time. This blending has

multiple benefits, such as providing an opportunity to learn by engaging multiple senses,

promoting whole-brain learning, and enhancing brain and body integration. Halla-Poe

cited several case studies which supported the efficacy of these kinesthetic methods for

improving emotional stability and behaviors in students with emotional disabilities and

significant disruptive behavior disorders.

Ayers (2005) reported that correlation case studies indicated that sensory

integration difficulties are often associated with disruptive behaviors. Movement and

gross motor play promote whole-brain as well as sensory integration. According to

Ayers, providing children with such opportunities stimulates brain wiring, which has a

positive effect on sensory integration, behaviors, social skills, and learning. According to

Terry Brazelton, M.D., Professor Emeritus of Pediatrics at Harvard University's School

of Medicine, Ayers (2005) is one of the leading authorities in the United States on

sensory integration. Disruptive behaviors interfere with learning and socialization.

The influence of movement on maladaptive behaviors associated with ADHD was

studied by Baker (2005). The methodology was a quasi-experimental design with pretest

and posttest data collection. The experimental group received mini-exercise breaks

throughout the school day and the control group did not receive an intervention.

According to Baker, the experimental group had significant behavior improvements

compared to the control group.

The effects of physical activity on cognition of children and teens ages 4 to 18

were investigated by Siley and Etnier (2003) using a meta-analysis. Their findings

indicated that students' cognitive processes have a positive relationship with physical

activity. Perceptual skills, intelligence quotient, academic achievement, verbal tests, math

tests, and academic readiness were also associated with physical activity. However, Siley

and Etnier did not find any relationship between memory and physical activity. Siley and

41

Etnier observed that children aged 4-7 and 11-13 years showed a higher correlation

between cognitive processes and physical activities than children 8-10 and 14-18 years.

Hillman, Erickson, and Krammer (2008), referencing numerous correlation

studies that found either a positive association or no association between physical activity

and academic performance in school-aged children, suggested that differences in results

were due to the way in which academic performance was measured and/or the longevity

of the studies. None of the cited studies found a negative relationship between physical

activity and academic performance. Further, Hillman et al. reported that these studies

indicated that reducing instructional time required to increase the amount of time devoted

to physical activity did not lead to a decline in student academic performance.

Although a substantial number of sound experimental studies were cited indicated

that physical activity has a positive effect on the brain in general and cognitive

functioning in particular Hillman et al. (2008) pointed out that little is known regarding

the type, frequency, or intensity of physical activities that are most efficient and most

effective in promoting cognition and brain health. To design effective movement-based

interventions, more research will be needed regarding the effects of specific movements

on brain activity. These studies uniformly noted that dispersing movement activities

throughout the day had a positive influence on adaptive and maladaptive behaviors.

However, 'Brain Gym' was not used as the intervention and, therefore, generalizations

about its efficacy cannot be made based on these reports. In summary, the findings of

studies related to instructional time verses time devoted to movement-based activities

indicate that combining small intervals of academic instruction and movement breaks

improves student behaviors and academic performance.

Midline Movements, Reflex Integration, Learning, and Behaviors

Research related to midline movements and reflex integration was reviewed to

investigate the effect of promoting integration of primitive reflexes and the ability to

cross over midlines with movement-based activities. Midlines are where two perceptual

fields meet and the human body has three; right-left, front-back, and top-bottom

(Dennison, 2003; Tyldesley, 1989; VanDeGraff, 1984). Reflexes are involuntary

responses to stimuli and humans are born with primitive reflexes that disappear with age

when development is typical (Goddard, 1996). Several studies have been conducted

investigating the inability to cross midlines and unintergraded primitive reflexes to

determine if these factors are associated with learning and behavior deficits in humans.

Findings of these studies will help to evaluate the value of such activities in improving

learning and behavior.

Goddard (1996), from the Institute for Neuro-Physiological Psychology, indicated

that primitive reflexes present at birth generally intergraded by the age of 15 months.

Goddard also reported that postural reflexes develop as primitive reflexes are intergraded.

Postural reflexes allow higher motor skills, such as fine muscle coordination, perceptual

processing, and ocular motor function to develop. When developmental delays occur, a

series of developmental events are stalled and detrimental effects on physical and

cognitive processes result. Children with developmental delays have higher rates of

academic difficulties compared to children meeting developmental milestones at typical

rates; and unfortunately, the prevalence of children entering school with developmental

delays is growing (Goddard, 1996).

43

Children having unintergraded reflexes generally appear awkward, are accident

prone and lethargic, have rigid posture (Goddard, 1996; Masgutova, 1999). Masgutova,

founder of the Institute of Movement Development and Reflex Integration (Poland),

stated that children with unintergraded reflexes have difficulty crossing the midlines and

often do not know where their body is in s'PACE', have sensory sensitivities, and

experience high levels of stress. The presence of primitive reflexes such as asymmetrical

tonic neck reflex (ATNR) and tonic labyrinthine reflex (TLR) after one year of age are

indicative of developmental delays (Masgutova, 1999). The ATNR reflex is also known

as the 'fencing reflex' because of its resemblance to the fencing position (Goddard,

1996). When the face is turned to one side, the arm and leg extend on the side the face is

turned to and the arm and leg on the opposite side bend. The TLR reflex is seen when

newborns are placed on their backs. The TLR reflex results in the torso and neck arching

very stiffly backwards, the legs and feet straighten when coming together and toes point,

and the arms bend towards the chest and fists clinch (Masgutova, 1999).

Jordan-Black (2005) conducted a quasi-experimental study to evaluate the effects

of movement on primitive reflex integration (ATNR and TLR) and academic

performance. In order to promote reflex integration an educational kinesiology program,

Primary Movement, was implemented as an intervention for two years. The program

included basic movements such as crawling, rolling side-over-side, and jumping. There

were 683 children, ages three to five, included in the study. Standardized assessments

were used to provide base-line data and ensure there were no pre-existing differences

between groups and evaluate student academic performance at the end of the study.

Academic measures included math, reading, and spelling performance. Data were

44

evaluated to determine if the program had significant effects on reflex integration and

academic performance. Results indicated that students who received the movement-based

program had significantly greater improvements in academic performance and ATNR

reflex integration than those who did not (Jordan-Black, 2005). This is important because

the findings of this study revealed that persistence of ATNR and TLR had a high

association with academic delays, bone and joint problems, and physical movement

difficulties. Over time, unintergraded ATNR and TLR can cause scoliosis and hip socket

dislocation (Jordan-Black, 2005).

Surburg and Easen (1999) and Woodard and Surburg (1999) at Indiana State

University conducted several correlation studies exploring the relationship between an

inability to cross midlines and cognitive functioning. Woodard and Surburg (1999)

studied different abilities to cross the three midlines and the relationship to cognitive and

developmental abilities. Their findings indicated that individuals with learning

difficulties, mental retardation, and developmental delays had significantly more

difficulty crossing midlines than those who had no delays; they referred to the inability to

cross midlines as midline-crossing inhibition (Woodard & Surburg, 1999). Surburg and

Eason (1999) initiated another correlation study to examine midline-crossing inhibition.

The results of this study mirrored those of Woodard and Surburg's investigation.

However, Surburg and Eason also determined that students without learning disabilities

could cross midlines easily.

Corso (1997) conducted a five-year, longitudinal correlation study to explore the

relationship between academic performance and crossing the sagittal, transverse, and

frontal midlines. The sample included 28 children struggling with reading and writing in

45

the general education setting. Corso found a statistically significant relationship between

the ability to cross midlines and reading and writing performance. Inability to cross the

frontal (front-back) midline was associated with letter reversal and confusion over

whether to begin reading from the left or right side of the page. Poor organizational skills

and difficulty with transitions were related to being unable to cross the transverse

(top-bottom) midline. Inability to cross the sagittal (left-right) midline was associated

with difficulty processing written and spoken language.

In summary, several studies posited that unintergraded primitive reflexes in

humans have detrimental effects on physical, cognitive, behavioral, emotional, and

sensory processes (Masgutova, 1999; Goddard, 1996; Jordan-Black, 2005). Findings of

these studies revealed that there is a high association between unintergraded reflexes,

inability to cross the three midlines, deficits in academic performance, and behavior

concerns. Researchers have also found, when individuals struggling with midline

movements and cognitive skills are given frequent opportunity to participate in

movements that cross midlines significant improvements in cognitive, behaviors, and

midline movement skills occurred (Surburg & Easen, 1993, 1999; Corso, 1997).

Furthermore, the ability to move across each midline was found to be uniquely related to

specific academic tasks and behaviors (Corso, 1997). These results suggest that research

regarding midline movements may be useful in designing specific interventions to meet

the unique academic/behavioral needs of students and has dramatic implications for

educational kinesiology as an intervention within the Rtl process.

'Brain Gym' and Student Academic Performance and Behaviors

'Brain Gym' programs are used throughout the United States and overseas to

meet teacher and student needs (Hannaford, 2005). 'Brain Gym' was endorsed in 1991 by

the National Learning Foundation as one of twelve exemplary educational programs

(Baker, 2005). However, educators must now look to empirical research-based

interventions in their quest to promote student excellence within the Rtl framework

(Fuchs and Fuchs, 2007). This section, explores independent research findings

concerning the ability of 'Brain Gym' programs to promote student performance.

Paul Dennison introduced 'Brain Gym' during the 1980s and is the founder of the

Brain Gym Institute (Brain Gym International/Educational Kinesiology Foundation,

2008). Dennison (2003) described 'Brain Gym' as a set of specific movements that

activate the brain and body for learning. Dennison promotes whole-brain and body

learning using midline movements. This concept that learning engages the whole mind

and body is considered to be one of the core principles of brain-based education (Caine et

al., 1999). The ability to physically cross midlines is linked to cognitive processes

required for learning (e.g., how humans perceive and respond to the world around them)

and 'Brain Gym' movements provide frequent opportunity to cross midlines (Goddard,

1996). As noted earlier, Dennison (2003) defined midlines as the place where two

perceptual fields meet. The human body has three midlines sagittal, transverse, and

frontal midlines (Dennison, 2003; Tyldesley; 1989; and VanDeGraff, 1984). Midlines

may be visualized as vertical lines separating the left and right sides (sagittal), upper and

lower half (transverse), and front and back sides (frontal midlines) of the body

(Dennison, 2003).

47

There are numerous studies supporting the idea that the ability to crossover a

given midline facilitates specific cognitive tasks (Goddard, 1999; Diamond, 1999;

Masgutova, 1999; Ayers, 1971). Dennison (2003) identified three dimensions of

movements (laterality, centering, and frontal) that correspond to each of the midlines

found in the human body. Dennison reported that the laterality dimension, the ability to

cross the right-left midline, engages both (right and left) hemispheres of the brain. The

ability to cross the right-left midline is linked to informational intelligence and processing

spoken and written language (Kephart, 1971; Dennison, 2003). Dennison asserted that the

centering dimension, or crossing the top-bottom midline, engages the frontal lobe and

hind brain. The ability to cross the top-bottom midline is associated with instinctual

behaviors such as fight-or-flight, rational thought, and abstract thinking (Dennison, 2003;

Masgutova, 1999). Dennison stated that the focus dimension, or crossing the front-back

midline, engages the midbrain. The ability to cross the front-back midline is associated

with attention and focus, which are necessary for learning (Hailman & Abell, 1980;

Dennison, 2003).

In order for humans to cross the three midlines, primitive and postural reflexes

must be intergraded (Hannaford, 2005; Masgutova, 1999). According to Masgutova and

Hannaford, 'Brain Gym' movements are effective for remediating development delays

because the 26 midline movements promote integration of primitive reflexes necessary

for higher developmental processes to occur. Therefore, utilizing the three 'Brain Gym'

dimension movements engages the whole brain and body so optimal growth,

development, and learning may occur.

Ferree (2001) conducted a study to compare the effects of 'Brain Gym', light

aerobic activities, and social skills on student academic performance and behavior. Ferree

used an experimental design with pretest and posttest measures based on nationally

standardized assessments. Students were randomly assigned to a 'Brain Gym' group, a

light aerobic group, or a social skills group. The results indicated that both exercise

groups had significant improvements over the social skills group. However, Ferree

emphasized that the only conclusion that could be drawn from the findings is that

physical activities have a positive effect upon student academic performance and

behaviors.

The effects of 'Brain Gym' lateral movements combined with 'Pre-fit' play

activities on numeracy and literacy with third grade students were studied by Walker

(2008). The research employed a quantitative quasi-experimental design. The findings

indicated that guided physical activities significantly improved primary grade-level

students' math and reading performance. However, Walker noted that since the study

combined both 'Brain Gym' and 'Pre-fit' play activities for the intervention, further

research would be needed to determine if the same results occur when 'Brain Gym' is the

sole intervention.

Witcher (2001) examined the effects of'Brain Gym', gender, socioeconomic

status, and previous performance on kindergarten students' phonological awareness.

Witcher's study is significant because it had a sound quantitative experimental design,

robust statistical analyses, measurement instruments that were psychometrically valid for

measuring the research constructs, appropriate teacher training, and the 'Brain Gym'

intervention (six basic movements) was implemented with fidelity. Witcher found that

the 'Brain Gym' movements did not have a significant effect on kindergarten students'

phonological awareness.

Voss (2006) conducted a control group quasi-experimental study with pretest and

posttest measures to evaluate the effects of 'Brain Gym' on 58 sixth grade students'

academic achievement and stress. Measures of student stress were gathered using the

School Situation Survey, a standardized self-report instrument, and survey reporting

teacher observations. Academic performance measures were gathered using the State

Testing and Recording (STAR) standardized achievement test. Students in the control

group participated in 'Brain Gym' activities twice daily over the two-week examination

period. Findings revealed no academic or stress related behavior gains for students

participating in 'Brain Gym' activities when compared to the control group. The findings

of Voss' (2006) and Witcher's (2001) studies shed doubt on the claims of Dennison

regarding the efficacy of the 'Brain Gym' program for improving academic performance

for behaviors.

According to Dennison (1981) and Hannaford (2005), 'Brain Gym' is effective in

meeting the needs of students with academic concerns. Dennison reported that students

with learning disabilities in the areas of reading and writing have benefited from 'Brain

Gym' interventions. Dennison supported these claims by referencing several case studies

of students with identified learning disabilities who have demonstrated significant

improvements after receiving 'Brain Gym' interventions (Dennison, 1981).

Hannaford (2005) discussed the dominance factor theory and made substantial

reference to neuroscience as support for the value of kinesthetic movement in the

learning process. The dominance factor is borrowed from Orton-Gillingham's

50

multi-sensory and phonics-based reading programs that are recommended by numerous

educators. Hannaford concurred that 'Brain Gym' utilizes whole body integrative

movements to promote learning and significantly improves performance for students with

learning challenges.

Spalding (2004) conducted qualitative quasi-experimental study with teacher

interviews and observations. This study used all 26 'Brain Gym' movements as the

intervention. The intervention was implemented for eight weeks with 63 six to ten year

old students. Participants in the study were general education students identified as

demonstrating learning, physical, or behavior concerns and in need of support. Student

observations were used to gather data. The findings indicated the majority of students

(67%) participating in 'Brain Gym' movements demonstrated no or varied

(improvements as well as declines) change in academic performance and behaviors.

However, students that were unable to crossover midlines at the beginning of the study

and learned to do so during the study demonstrated higher rates of reading, math,

handwriting, and behavior gains. These students also displayed greater improvements in

behavior and physical posture and awareness of s'PACE'. These findings provide insight

into the efficacy of 'Brain Gym' as a primary intervention in the Rtl process since the

study included students identified as at-risk of failing. The results of this study indicated

that the majority of at-risk students demonstrated no or varied change after receiving

'Brain Gym'; however, academic and behavior improvements were seen for students who

were unable to cross midlines and gained the skills to do so during the study.

Trahan and Carpenter (2005) conducted a quantitative quasi-experiment using

pretest and posttest reading scores based on standardized assessments to evaluate the

51

effect of 'Brain Gym' on student performance. This study had several strengths

including: sound 'Brain Gym' training, adequate teacher supports, program

implementation according to 'Brain Gym' protocol, and intervention fidelity throughout

the study. The results indicated that classes with the 'Brain Gym' intervention

demonstrated statistically significant reading gains compared to the control group. The

authors also noted that office referrals for misbehavior decreased dramatically in

classrooms having the intervention. This study was conducted through a state regional

educational service center in Texas and, due to findings, the center planned to promote

'Brain Gym' for the school districts in the region. Results of Trahan and Carpenter's

(2005) studies supported 'Brain Gym' as an effective intervention. 'Brain Gym' was

implemented within the general education setting across diverse populations in these

studies. Therefore, these findings provide insight into the efficacy of 'Brain Gym' as a

general education intervention. However, the researchers cautioned that these findings are

only supportive and recommended further experimental work.

In summary, the literature review resulted in no to little support regarding the

effect of 'Brain Gym' on student performance, with the majority of studies finding no

significant effect (Spalding, 2004; Voss, 2006; Witcher, 2001). The study indicating that

'Brain Gym' had positive effects was only supportive according the researchers (Trahan

& Carpenter, 2005). Several studies combined 'Brain Gym' with other movement-based

activities and gains could only be attributed to the positive benefits of physical activity.

Based on these findings, the existing body of literature reveals no to weak support of the

positive benefits of 'Brain Gym' on student academic performance and behaviors.

'Brain Gym' within the Realities of a School Setting

Kratochwill and Hoagwood (2005) wrote of an ongoing tension in education

between the relevance of science versus service, and the notions of efficacy versus

effectiveness. This debate is widening as Rtl comes on the scene. The educational field

needs to address research as an intergraded science focusing on implementation

effectiveness (Kratochwill & Hoagwood, 2005). Factors such as methodology and

conceptualization as well as portability of the intervention should be considered in

designing effective programs. Therefore, evaluating 'Brain Gym' as an intervention

within schools using each component described by Kratcohwill and Hoagwood as

contributing to intervention efficacy (i.e., methodology, conceptualization, providing

service, and portability to the school) will be addressed in this section.

Neuro-biological research relying on the latest technology, midline research, and

brain-based learning studies have played major roles in developing the methods and

concepts of movement-based interventions. Hillman et al. (2008) reviewed multiple

studies exploring the biological basis of learning which establish the ability of physical

activity to promote cognitive functioning and brain health. Numerous educational

kinesiology programs (e.g., 'Brain Gym', 'Smart Moves', 'Primary Moves', and 'Pre-fit')

are available to educators. However, Hillman et al. noted that little is known concerning

which movements are most effective.

Midline research has established a direct relationship between specific midline

movements and specific patterns of learning difficulties and behavior concerns (Corso,

1999; Surburg & Eason, 1999; Woodard & Surburg 1999). Therefore, this line of inquiry

may shed light on which movements are most appropriate for addressing specific student

53

needs. These studies found that movement-based interventions crossing the three

midlines were more effective in addressing the needs of struggling students. 'Brain Gym'

is based on movements that focus on crossing-over the midlines frequently (Dennison,

2003). Therefore, 'Brain Gym' may be more effective in promoting student performance

than similar programs not focusing on midline movements.

Research in the field of brain-based learning integrates neuroscience research and

educational techniques in order to approach teaching from a child-centered standpoint.

This considers the natural learning processes at various stages of development. According

to Caine et al. (1999), brain-based research has 12 major principles. Allowing students to

move and engage the motor cortex for more brain oxygenation is one of these principles.

Caine et al. (1999) also noted that brain-based education core principles assume learning

involves the whole body. In other words, learning includes movement, biochemistry,

attention, and nutrition. Brain-based core principles also propose that learning involves

focused attention and peripheral perception (Caine et al., 1999). In addition, brain-based

education principles state that emotions play a significant role in attention, memory, and

meaning. Hannaford (2005) concluded that the 'Brain Gym' program aligns itself with

brain-based learning core principles by promoting whole-brain body learning that

facilitates balanced emotions, attention and focus, and sensory integration by

incorporating movement into classroom instructional time.

Bringing an intervention to the school can be challenging. According to

Danielson, Doolittle, and Bradley (2007), even effective, scientific research-based

interventions fail in the school environment due to lack of support or other extraneous

variables. Kaufman et al. (2008) reported that Caine and Caine (1997) spent four years

working in two schools in order to help teachers move from an information delivery to a

learner-centered approach with minimal success. At the end of that time, Caine and Caine

concluded the impact of an intervention is dependent upon intervention efficacy, fidelity

of implementation, support from administration, teacher attitudes, and funding.

There is substantial research focusing on promoting school change that recounts

these warnings and disappointments. Gaining the support of teachers, students, and

parents, teacher training, careful planning for the process of implementation, and

sustained support are important elements that link research to practice (Danielson et al.,

2007). Therefore, examining factors that may be obstacles to implementing 'Brain Gym'

or other movement-based interventions will prove helpful in evaluating intervention

efficacy.

Teacher attitudes towards movement-based programs must be considered.

Tremarche et al. (2007) found that teachers view instructional time as the determining

component of student performance. Furthermore, they noted that teachers rate physical

activity as contributing only minimally to student academic performance, despite

research to the contrary. Baker (2005) pointed out that many teachers view disruptive

behaviors and academic difficulties as the result of students' poor attitudes and resort to

punitive measures for classroom management.

Baker (2005) noted that not only teachers' attitudes but those of students' impact

the effectiveness of interventions. According to Baker, students who evaluate an

intervention negatively may compromise its integrity by refusing to participate

appropriately. For example, students who rely on peer pressure to assert their presumed

position of leadership tend to respond to change negatively and often attempt to disrupt

55

the process. Based on this information even research-based educational kinesiology

programs designed to improve student academic performance or classroom behavior may

meet resistance.

Spaulding (2004) conducted a qualitative study exploring teacher and student

reactions after 'Brain Gym' was implemented for eight weeks in the general education

classroom. The study included 16 teachers and 63 students from 11 public and private

schools in Colorado and Minnesota. Teachers initially reported concern about

implementing the program. Concerns included loss of instructional time, reactions of

students and parents to 'Brain Gym' activities, students acting silly and getting out of

control during the activities, teachers feeling overwhelmed by adding 'Brain Gym' as a

daily activity, and teachers viewing the program as just another fad pushed by

administration. After implementation, teachers participating in the study gave positive

responses when asked about the effects of 'Brain Gym' in the classroom. Teachers

reported that they felt 'Brain Gym' was an important facet of the curriculum. Teachers

reported that the majority of students (54%) demonstrated varied improvements (gains as

well as declines), 13% showed no change, and 33% had improvements in academic

performance and behaviors. Teachers described students as calmer and better able to

maintain appropriate focus when using 'Brian Gym'. Teachers also reported that

accidents decreased, classroom behaviors improved, peers become more supportive of

each other, and students' self-esteem and leadership skills improved. In addition, teachers

reported personal benefits.

At the conclusion of the study, teacher and student attitudes regarding 'Brain

Gym' were favorable despite their initial reluctance (Spaulding, 2004). Participating

students generally had a positive reaction to 'Brain Gym' and the majority believed the

activities were helpful and enjoyable. Students reminded teachers when 'Brain Gym'

activities were skipped and asked permission to use the movements during testing times.

Parents of children in the study said family members received instruction and explanation

about 'Brain Gym'. Only a few of the older boys thought the activities were silly and

refused to participate. Spaulding observed that teacher reluctance towards 'Brain Gym'

was transformed into praise as the two-month study progressed. Teachers in the study

even elected to continue using it as an integral component of the curriculum after the

study. The majority of students in the study also elected to continue using the activities.

Bringing 'Brain Gym' into schools also means facing practical issues such as the

time, expense involved with materials, physical space required, and modification of the

intervention for students with special needs (Kratochwill & Hoagwood, 2005). The

foundational movements of'Brain Gym', called 'PACE', require about five minutes to

complete (Dennison, 1989). The 'Brain Gym' Three Day Rotation Plan is a curriculum

that includes all 26 movements and requires approximately 8-10 minutes twice daily to

complete (Meders, 2000). Educators who prefer to use 'Brain Gym' as a pre-learning

activity engage students in approximately three minutes of specific movements designed

to promote the upcoming task (Dennison, 1989). According to Hannaford (2005), one of

the unique features of 'Brain Gym' is the diversity of ways educators may implement the

program making it appropriate for a variety of circumstances.

'Brain Gym' activities may easily be completed in the classroom environment

with minimal expense for materials. Movements may be completed during circle time

while students sit or lay on the floor or at their desk while students to stand by their desk

or remain seated in their chair. Each of the movements is adaptable for students with

physical disabilities (Hannaford, 2005). There are no required materials other than access

to water and a visual aid for completing the 'Alphabet Eights' movement (Dennison,

1989).

Training may easily be provided to teachers in a faculty meeting and students

gathered in classrooms, physical education classes, or music classes (Trahan &

Carpenter, 2005). Furthermore, 'Brain Gym' movements are simple and easy to follow so

students transferring in after the training period are able to participate by watching and

mimicking the activities. According to the 'Brain Gym' website (2009), licensed

instructors across the United States offer the introductory 'Brain Gym' course regularly.

The introductory course provides instruction about the three midlines, guidelines about

how to complete all 26 movements, and information about how to perform 'Brain Gym'

basic balances. The course is usually taught over three days and costs $350 to $400 per

person (Brain Gym Institute, 2009), but many school districts contract with a licensed

'Brain Gym' instructor at group rates in order to provide teacher training.

In summary, midline studies, neurobiological studies, and brain-based learning

research support the methodology and conceptualization 'Brain Gym' (Cores, 1999;

Surburg & Eason, 1999; Woodard & Surburg 1999). Studies conducted by Trahan and

Carpenter (2005) and Spaulding (2004) explored 'Brain Gym' as a school intervention.

The results of these studies indicated that it is feasible to successfully transport 'Brain

Gym' as a service to students and teachers in schools. These studies suggest that 'Brain

Gym' should be compatible with school environments.

58

Problems with the Research Base

Numerous studies have evaluated Dr. Dennison's claims regarding the

effectiveness of 'Brain Gym'. This section will provide a critical analysis of the research

base related to 'Brain Gym' programs. All research has limitations that must be

considered in order to establish grounds for further studies that will eventually provide

solid conclusions regarding the ability of 'Brain Gym' programs to promote student

performance. Hyatt's (2007) literature review explored the theoretical basis for 'Brain

Gym' and critically evaluated previous peer-reviewed studies supporting the program.

Hyatt (2007) reported that 'Brain Gym' seeks to rectify neurological deficits

resulting from developmental delays and/or disruptions. The program's interventions

target neurological re-patterning, cerebral dominance factors, and perceptual-motor

training. Neurological re-patterning is taken from the Doman-Delacato theory of

development which proposes that learning problems result when children skip motor

developmental milestones, such as crawling. Hyatt wrote that the cerebral dominance

theory proposes that dyslexia is a result of mixed cerebral dominance and is based on

Orton's theories. Hyatt noted that Orton's theory is the basis of Orton-Gillingham

multi-sensory and phonics-based programs currently in wide use in schools. Hyatt also

reported that the perceptual-motor training theory proposes that learning difficulties are a

result of inefficient integration of visual, auditory, and motor skills. According to Hyatt,

this theory holds that learning disabilities may be ameliorated by teaching students the

underdeveloped perceptual skill. Hyatt emphasized that all three theories have been

highly criticized and cautioned against using 'Brain Gym' as an intervention. However,

Hyatt discussed several positive points regarding the theoretical basis of 'Brain Gym',

such as the current use of Orton-Gillingham programs.

Hyatt (2007) also critically examined research articles published in peer-reviewed

journals in favor of 'Brain Gym'. Hyatt indicated that some major areas of concern

included inadequate descriptions of teacher training, utilization of assessment instruments

that are not psychometricaHy sound and valid for the constructs being measured, failure

to adequately describe the specific 'Brain Gym' program used in a study, using an

intervention that combines 'Brain Gym' with other programs, and failure to implement

the interventions with fidelity. Hyatt's article should help researchers avoid making

similar mistakes when developing a research design.

Hyatt (2007) cautioned researchers to critically evaluate even peer-reviewed

journal articles about 'Brain Gym'. Hyatt pointed out several concerns regarding the

efficacy of the 'Brain Gym' program. Hyatt's concerns included controversial findings of

previous 'Brain Gym' studies as well as the quality of published 'Brain Gym' research

and studies from related fields opposing the theoretical basis of the 'Brain Gym'

program. Hyatt concluded that 'Brain Gym' is not an effective educational intervention,

warned educators against using the program, and referred to it as a hoax. Thus, there is a

need for high-quality research utilizing standardized assessment tools to evaluate the

efficacy of the 'Brain Gym' program.

Summary

'Brain Gym' is a kinetic-based program designed to improve student academic

performance and school behaviors by integrating frequent breaks for movement with

academic instruction and transitions throughout the school day (Hannaford, 2005).

Dennison's 26 'Brain Gym' movements are designed to frequently cross over the three

midlines of the human body. The ability to cross midlines is associated with specific

areas of the brain and particular academic tasks (Dennison, 2003; Hannaford, 2005).

Midline research supports Hannaford's conclusions by suggesting a direct relationship

between specific midline movements and distinct patterns of learning difficulties and

behavior concerns (Corso, 1999; Surburg & Eason, 1999; Woodard & Surburg 1999).

However, Hillman et al. (2008) reported there is little known regarding the type,

frequency, or duration of movements that are most effective. Further, Kratochwill and

Hoagwood (2005) concluded that intervention efficacy depends upon science and service

as well as portability of the intervention to the setting. Therefore, guidance on selecting

educational kinesiology movements and programs to meet the specific needs of students

and teachers within the school environment is limited.

The review of literature revealed that movement has a positive influence on

student academic performance and behaviors. However, research is inconclusive

regarding the efficacy of 'Brain Gym'. Areas of weakness included the combination of

'Brain Gym' with other movement programs, conflicting research findings, lack of

replication, and limited studies utilizing sound research designs. Review of literature

investigating 'Brain Gym' as a school intervention provided no to weak support for the

program's efficacy in addressing student needs (Witcher, 2001; Voss, 2006; Spalding,

2004). Only one study reported favorable findings; however, researchers indicated results

only imply a relationship and do not prove cause and effect (Trahan & Carpenter, 2005).

The majority of studies combined 'Brain Gym' with other programs, such as social skills

training, physical exercise, or other movement-based activities; (Ayers, 2005; Baker,

61

2005; Ferree, 2001; Halla-Poe, 2002; Walker, 2008). The findings of these studies

supported that physical activity has positive effects on student performance, but no

conclusions could be drawn regarding the efficacy of the 'Brian Gym' program. In each

of these nine studies, improvements could only be attributed to movement rather than

'Brain Gym' specifically.

Hyatt's (2007) critical evaluation of'Brain Gym' research revealed substantial

concern regarding the efficacy of the program. Hyatt emphasized the high level of

criticism directed at the three basic theories underlying the 'Brain Gym' program. For

example, the Doman-Delacato theory has been rejected by the American Academy of

Pediatrics and the American Academy of Neurology (Hyatt, 2007). Hyatt also found that

the vast majority of published 'Brain Gym' studies used questionable research methods

including: selecting assessment instruments not psychometrically sound and valid for the

constructs being measured, lack of specificity about the 'Brain Gym' movements used in

a study, and not implementing the interventions faithfully. Hyatt's literature review of

'Brain Gym' research sheds significant doubt on the founding premise of the program as

well as existing supportive studies.

The review of literature indicates that Dennison's claims regarding 'Brian Gym'

program are unsupported by the current body of research and remain largely

uninvestigated. Furthermore, the existing body of research does not meet IDEA and

NCLB mandates specifying that only scientific research-based interventions may be used

to meet the needs of struggling students. After an extensive review of research, the

question remains: What is the effect of Dennison's 26 'Brain Gym' movements on

student academic performance and behavior?

62

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The purpose of this quantitative experimental study was to examine the effects of

Dennison's 26 'Brain Gym' movements as a tier-one Rtl and a class-wide general

education intervention for primary grade-level students' (at-risk as well as overall

populations) academic performance and behaviors as measured by the TAKS Reading,

TAKS Math, and BASC-II instruments. Dennison proposed that his movement-based

program, 'Brain Gym', can effectively meet the needs of diverse students struggling with

academic and behavior problems with minimal loss of instruction time (Brain Gym

International, 2008). Federal laws now require educators to employ only empirical,

scientific, research-based interventions (i.e., experimental research producing observable

measurable results) in order to meet the academic and behavior needs of at-risk general

education students (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2007). Several sound experimental studies

demonstrating the positive effects of physical activity or movement on cognitive

functions, emotional well-being, and behavior exist (Hall, 2007; Lui, 2008; Tremarche et

al., 2007). However, the current scientific research regarding 'Brain Gym' is limited and

their findings are inconclusive (Hyatt, 2007).

These difficulties limit 'Brain Gym' use in schools. Another concern is that the

research base regarding effective school-based interventions is limited, especially for

interventions capable of meeting a diverse range of student needs when implemented on a

large-scale, such as the typical general education classroom (Baker et al., 2006). This

study was developed due to the demand for interventions able to meet a diverse range of

student needs on a large scale, federal laws requiring empirical, scientific research-based

Rtl interventions, and the fact that previous related studies did not use an experimental

63

design. Therefore, a quantitative experimental design with random assignment of students

to classrooms and classrooms to control and experimental groups was developed to test

hypotheses related to four research questions, which are:

1. What is the effect of Dennison's 26 'Brain Gym' movements as a general

education class-wide intervention on primary grade-level (third through sixth grades)

student academic performance as measured by the TAKS Reading and TAKS Math tests?

Hlo: Dennison's 26 'Brain Gym' movements, as a general education class-wide

intervention, have no significant effect on primary grade-level (third through sixth

grades) student academic performance as measured by the TAKS Reading and TAKS

Math tests.

Hla: Dennison's 26 'Brain Gym' movements, as a general education class-wide

intervention, have a significant effect on primary grade-level (third through sixth grades)

student academic performance as measured by the TAKS Reading and TAKS Math tests.

2. What is the effect of Dennison's 26 'Brain Gym' movements as a general

education tier-one intervention within the Rtl process on primary grade-level (third

through sixth grades) at-risk student academic performance as measured by the TAKS

Reading and TAKS Math tests?

H2o: Dennison's 26 'Brain Gym' movements, as a general education tier-one

intervention within the Rtl process, have no significant effect on primary grade-level

(third through sixth grades) at-risk student academic performance as measured by the

TAKS Reading and TAKS Math tests.

H2a: Dennison's 26 'Brain Gym' movements, as a general education tier-one

intervention within the Rtl process, have a significant effect on primary grade-level (third

through sixth grades) at-risk student academic performance as measured by the TAKS

Reading and TAKS Math tests.

3. What is the effect of Dennison's 26 'Brain Gym' movements as a general

education class-wide intervention on primary grade-level (second through sixth grades)

student behaviors as measured by the BASC-II teacher behavior rating instrument?

H3o: Dennison's 26 'Brain Gym' movements, as a general education class-wide

intervention, have no significant effect on primary grade-level (second through sixth

grades) student behaviors as measured by the BASC-II teacher behavior rating instrument.

H3a: Dennison's 26 'Brain Gym' movements, as a general education class-wide

intervention, have a significant effect on primary grade-level (second though sixth

grades) student behaviors as measured by the BASC-II teacher behavior rating instrument.

4. What is the effect of Dennison's 26 'Brain Gym' movements as a general

education tier-one intervention within the Rtl process on primary grade-level (second

through sixth grades) at-risk student behaviors as measured by the BASC-II teacher

behavior rating instrument?

H40: Dennison's 26 'Brain Gym' movements implemented as a general education

tier-one intervention within the Rtl process have no significant effect on primary

grade-level (second through sixth grades) at-risk student behavior as measured by the

BASC-II teacher behavior rating instrument.

H4a: Dennison's 26 'Brain Gym' movements, as a general education tier-one

intervention within the Rtl process, have a significant effect on primary grade-level

(second though sixth grades) at-risk student behaviors as measured by the BASC-II

teacher behavior rating instrument.

65

This chapter will be presented in nine sections. First, research method and design

will be discussed. Rationale for selecting specific methods will be provided in this

section. Next, the demographics and selection of participants and their placement in

groups will be discussed. In the third section, detailed descriptions of the materials

utilized will be provided. Operational definitions of independent and dependent variables

will be presented in the fourth section. The fifth and sixth sections will give specific

details related to the execution of this study, which includes a detailed account of how the

independent variable was implemented. This is followed by an explanation of how the

dependent variables were measured, processed, and analyzed. Methodological

assumptions and limitations related to the research design, as well as delimitations that

arose during the study will be discussed in the seventh section. The eighth section will

explain ethical concerns associated with this study and how they were addressed. A

summary of major points will close the chapter.

Research Method and Design

A quantitative experimental design with random assignment of students to

classrooms, and participating classrooms to control and experimental groups was used to

evaluate the effects of 'Brain Gym' on the academic performance and behaviors of public

school general education primary grade-level students (at-risk and overall populations),

as defined by the TAKS Reading, TAKS Math, and BASC-II. Posttest data was collected

following eight months of intervention using the 'Brain Gym' Three Day Rotation Plan

(Meders, 2000). Change scores were calculated, and data were analyzed using two-tailed

independent samples t test with a 95% confidence level. This approach was chosen for

five major reasons. First, IDEA 2004 and NCLB require that interventions used to address

struggling students needs m public education be empirical research-based (Fuchs &

Fuchs, 2007). Quantitative experimental design utilizing robust statistics meets Rtl

criteria, by providing observable and measurable data using. Secondly, a control group

quantitative experimental design is one of the most rigorous methods of research because

it establishes the intervention as the cause of the observed outcome, while correlation and

causal-comparative studies establish only that a relationship exists (Bordens & Abbott,

2005). Third, decisions about the design of this study were based on minimizing and

balancing the probability of Type I and Type II errors, such as setting alpha at .05,

selecting two-tailed rather than one-tailed t test, and ensuring the sample size for each

measure was above 30 (Heiman, 2003). Fourth, the use of change scores minimized any

pre-intervention differences between control and experimental groups. Fifth, the majority

of previous studies regarding the effects of 'Brain Gym', midline movement, and other

movement-based interventions on cognition, emotion, and behavior have selected

quasi-experimental or experimental designs. Therefore, using a similar design for this

study will help add substance when evaluating the efficacy of 'Brain Gym' on academic

performance and behaviors.

Participants

The participants included 364 primary grade-level (second through sixth grades)

students who attend a rural school district in East Texas. The district was chosen for

convenience. Students in grades 7-12 were not included in the sample due to their

frequent schedule changes. Consistently implementing the research intervention in these

grades would likely not be possible.

The participating school district for this study was located in East Texas on the

outskirts of a mid-sized city. Recent demographic information from the participating

school district indicated the district had approximately 2,865 students, of which 52%

were males. The student ethnicity distribution was 72% White, 19% Black, 8% Hispanic,

0.7% Asian, and 0.5% American Indian/Alaskan. The socioeconomic makeup of the

student population qualified the district for Title One funds. Approximately 13.6% of the

students who attend the district have individual educational plans.

Students in the participating school district were randomly assigned to appropriate

grade-level classes before the first day of school by the district office and classrooms

were randomly assigned to control and experimental groups in October 2008. The size of

the sample is related to the amount of statistical power and, in theory, a sample of 30 is

required for adequate power when robust statistical analysis is used (Heiman, 2003).

Projective power analysis, based on calculations developed by Lenth (2009), indicated

that a sample size of 126 participants would yield 80% power. The study included 364

primary grade-level students. The class-wide academic measures included 297

participants since 67 subjects were dropped from the study due to transfers in and out of

the district, taking an alternative form of the TAKS, or absences during the testing

periods. The number of participants identified as at-risk in reading and math included

only a small portion of the total number of subjects in this study. Therefore, Rtl academic

intervention measures included 68 at-risk students for reading and 73 for math measures.

Each BASC-II rating takes approximately 30 minutes to complete and because teachers'

time is limited they completed behavior ratings for only three students. As a result, the

actual sample size for classroom behavior measures was 48 students, while Rtl behavior

68

intervention measures included 30 at-risk students. Therefore, all behavior and academic

measures included more than 30 subjects.

Materials

Materials used in this study will be described in this section. Materials included

TAKS Reading tests, TAKS Math tests, BASC-II teacher rating form, The 'Brain Gym'

Three Day Rotation Plan ('Brain Gym' Curriculum) curriculum and illustrated posters,

water bottles, the Data Management and Communication {DMAC) database, and

Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS) software. This section will include

descriptions of the TAKS Reading, TAKS Math, and BASC-II instruments used to provide

measures of the dependent variables for this study. The independent variable, the 'Brain

Gym' Curriculum, will also be discussed. Materials required for implementing the

curriculum will also be reviewed. Finally, DMAC and SPSS, used to gather and analyze

the data for this study, will be described.

The dependent variables for reading and math performance were measured using

the TAKS Reading and TAKS Math tests. The Texas Education Agency/Student

Assessment Division manages and oversees developing, administering, scoring and

analyzing the statewide TAKS assessment test (TEA, 2008c). The TAKS test is a

standardized instrument used to assess grade-level essential knowledge and skills in the

core academic areas of reading, language arts, writing, social studies, math, and science

(TEA, 2008b). Science, writing, and social studies are assessed only in specific

grade-levels. The TAKS reading and math tests are administered to students in grades

3-12 annually late in the spring semester. The TAKS tests are administered under

standardized guidelines throughout Texas and grade-level students receive identical

69

assessments and multiple choice response forms (TEA, 2008b). Based on this

information, the TAKS tests have sound reliability.

State standardized tests, such as TAKS, are considered high stakes tests since

school, teacher, and student accountability measures depend heavily on the results (TEA,

2008c). For some grade-levels, promotion is tied to the scores. The state therefore allows

students three attempts to meet the minimum results. The first administration of the TAKS

Reading and TAKS Math tests were used for this study.

The TAKS Reading and TAKS Math tests are designed to assess all areas of

knowledge and essential skills required for students to be proficient in reading and

mathematics 'on grade-level', as defined by Texas Education Agency (Texas Education

Agency, 2008b). The TAKS Reading test measures key reading components as defined by

the National Panel of Reading (National Institute of Child Health and Human

Development, 2008; see Appendix A for definitions). The TAKS Math test is aligned with

three key math components defined by National Council of Teachers of Mathematics

(National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2008; see Appendix B for definitions).

The TAKS tests are state-normed instruments administered under standardized guidelines

(Texas Education Agency, 2008b). Based on this information, the TAKS Reading and

TAKS Math tests are valid instruments for providing measures of students' reading and

math academic performance, have sound psychometric properties, and are reliable and

valid instruments for providing academic measures of interest in this study.

Dependent variables for adaptive and maladaptive behaviors were measured using

the Behavior Assessment Scale for Children, Second Edition, Teacher Rating Form

(BASC-II, TRF) as the teacher rating instrument. Teacher time is limited and the BASC-II

70

requires approximately 20 minutes per student to complete, so only a small portion of the

research sample was included in the behavior ratings (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2006).

Teachers participating in the study completed the BASC-II for three randomly-selected

students, giving a sample size of 48 students. This sample thereby met the theoretical

minimum size needed for sufficient power (Heiman, 2003). Teacher ratings were

completed in October 2008 and May 2009.

The BASC-II, Teacher Rating Scale {BASC-II, TRS) is a nationally-normed and

standardized instrument (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2006). Reliability for the BASC-II, TRS

is as follows: internal consistency reliability = .80, test re-test reliability = .89, and

inter-rater reliability = .71 (Kamphaus & Frick, 2002). Validity of the BASC-II, TRS

instrument is good, based on very high correlations with other teacher rating scales

(Kamphaus & Frick, 2002). The instrument incorporates a Likert rating scale to measure

behaviors (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2006) and has sound psychometric properties

(Kamphaus & Frick, 2002).

The BASC-II, TRS is an omnibus rating scale designed to measure student

behaviors (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2006), which are measured across 15 narrowband

scales: Aggression, Anxiety, Attention Problems, Atypicality, Conduct Problems,

Depression, Hyperactivity, Somatization, Withdrawal, Activities of Daily Living,

Adaptability, Functional Communication, Leadership, Social Skills, and Study Skills.

The narrowband scales are grouped into six broadband scales: Externalizing Problems,

Internalizing Problems, Behavior Symptom Index, Learning Problems Adaptive Skills,

and Study Skills. These scales are then categorized as Maladaptive or Adaptive

Behaviors (see Appendixes C and D).

71

The BASC-II, TRS contains three validity scales including Fake Bad, Response

Pattern, and Consistency (Kamphaus & Frick, 2002). The validity scales measure,

respectively, negative bias, stereotypical or unusual response patterns, and inconsistency

of responses to the same type questions. Validity scales provide measures indicating if

teacher ratings are likely to be a true representation of student behaviors (Kamphaus &

Frick, 2002). T-scores for each narrowband and broadband scale were compared, and the

coefficient of similarity was calculated between the raters' scores to ensure inter-rater

reliability.

The 'Brain Gym' Curriculum was selected for the study because it incorporates

all 26 'Brain Gym' movements (Meders, 2000). The program was accepted and endorsed

by the Brain Gym Institute Board (Brain Gym International, 2008) and is considered

valid for evaluating the effects 'Brain Gym' movements. The program includes a

curriculum and illustrated posters of the movements. Providing classrooms with the

curriculum and illustrated posters promotes integrity of the intervention and therefore

reliability for the study.

Other materials associated with the 'Brain Gym' Curriculum included water

bottles and 'Alphabet Eights' posters for students. Water bottles with the 'Brain Gym'

logo were supplied for participants. The 'Alphabet Eights' posters were supplied to a

small portion of the research classrooms. As all subjects did not receive a poster, the

movement was not implemented consistently. However, 'Lazy Eights' movement was

used to replace 'Alphabet Eights' since these 'Brain Gym' movements are similar and

cross the midlines (see Methodological Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations in

this chapter for details). Teachers were also given calendars to track the consistency of

implementation over time and classroom participation in the intervention.

Software applications included the BASC-II Assist Plus non-scannable software

and Scoring Assistant and SPSS Student Version 16.0 (SPSS 16.0) were used. The

BASC-II TRF may be scored by hand, non-scannable software, or scannable software

(Pearson Inc., 2009). The non-scannable software requires computer entry, but calculates

standard scores and interprets results. The scannable version of the program is more than

twice the cost of the non-scannable, but eliminates computer entry error. The BASC-II

Assist Plus non-scannable software was selected for this study and allows for data to be

entered twice as a precaution against entry errors (Pearson, Inc., 2009). In order to

ensure reliability, this option was used.

The SPSS is the most widely use desktop statistics program in the world (SPSS,

Inc., 2007). Data analysis tools include spreadsheet applications, statistical procedures,

and graphics. The program is capable of performing t tests, ANOVA, and

crosstabulations. The SPSS 16.0 was selected for data analysis owing to its wide use,

excellent reputation, ability to perform the statistical procedures used in this study,

relatively low cost, and recency of the version.

The DMAC database retrieved TAKS reading and math scores. The program is a

web-based software suite designed to help educators develop and manage curriculum and

assessment data in Texas schools (Region VII Educational Service Center, 2009) and is

available to educators through state-supported regional educational service centers

located across Texas. The TAKS standardized scores were retrieved from the DMAC

database housed at the Region VII Educational Service Center, Kilgore.

73

Operational Definition of Variables

Definitions for variables used in this study are given in this section. The study

contained one independent variable and four dependent variables. The independent

variable was the 'Brain Gym' intervention implemented in the experimental group.

Dependent variables included academic reading performance, academic math

performance, adaptive behaviors, and maladaptive behaviors. Dependent variables were

measured using standardized instruments including the TAKS Reading, TAKS Math, and

BASC-II, TRS. Figure 1 presents the variables, their operational definitions, and the range

of possible values assignable to each of the constructs for the study. Figure 2 presents the

relationship between the independent and dependent variables in a conceptual construct

model.

Variables

Student Academic Reading Performance

Student Academic Math Performance

Student Adaptive School Behaviors

Student Maladaptive School Behaviors

Operational Definitions

Dependent Variable (Yi)

Dependent Variable (Y2)

Dependent Variable (Y3)

Dependent Variable (Y4)

List of Possible Values

Possible values of 0-2800 for TAKS

Possible values of 0-2800 for TAKS

Possible values of 0-120

Possible values of 0-120

Figure 1. Definition of variables.

Yl Reading Performance

(comprehension, fluency, vocabulary, phonemes, phonemic awareness)

Y2 Math Performance

(problem solv ing, math reasoning, critical thinking )

Y3 Student Adaptive Behaviors

(adaptability, social skills, leadership, functional communication, study skills)

Y4 Student Maladaptive Behaviors

(hyperactivity, aggression, conduct problems, anxiety, depression, somatization, atypicality,

withdrawal, learning problems, attention problems)

Figure 2. Conceptual model for the control group quantitative experimental design.

X

Brain Gym

Three Day-Rotation Plan

75

'Brain Gym'. The independent variable (X) for this study had the possible values

of implemented or not implemented. The 'Brain Gym' program utilized in this study was

the 'Brain Gym' Three Day Rotation Plan (Meders, 2000).

The 'Brain Gym' Curriculum is designed for implementation in classrooms and

can be found on the Brain Gym Institute web site (see Appendix E) and includes six

lesson plans that are done morning and afternoon for three days on a rotation. Each lesson

requires approximately eight minutes per session to complete. The lesson plan includes

illustrations and instruction for completing each of the 26 'Brain Gym' movements.

Student Academic Reading Performance. Dependent Variable (Yi), had possible

values of 0-2800 for TAKS Reading standard scores and these were used to measure

reading academic performance for students included in the study. As noted above, since

TAKS reading tests assess all five key components of reading established by the NPR to

measure student reading proficiency the scores were considered a valid measure of

student academic reading performance (NPR, 2008; see Appendix A for definitions).

The TAKS Reading test is available in three alternate forms allowing students to

have three opportunities to meet the minimum standards required for grade promotion

(TEA, 2008c). The TAKS tests are administered each April and May under standardized

conditions which vary according to grade-level. Students who receive a score of less than

2100 are given two additional opportunities to meet minimum standards. All TAKS scores

used in this study were from first administration results.

Student Academic Math Performance. Dependent Variable (Y2), had possible

values of 0-2800 for TAKS Math standard scores. The TAKS Math tests were used to

measure math academic performance for students included in the study because they are

based on the three key components of math established by the NCTM to measure

students' math proficiency (NCTM, 2008; see Appendix B for definitions). Therefore, the

TAKS Math test is considered to be a valid measure of student math performance.

The test is available in three alternate forms allowing students to have three

opportunities to meet the minimum standard score (2100) required for grade promotion

(TEA, 2008c). Math scores used in this study are from first administration results.

Student Adaptive Behavior. Dependent Variable (Y3) had possible values of

0-120. The BASC-II, TRS, a standardized nationally-normed instrument, measured

student adaptive behaviors. This instrument provides ratio level data in the form of

T-scores and percentiles. T-scores have a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10.

Adaptive behaviors are categorized as: Daily Living Skills, Adaptability, Functional

Communication, Social Skills, Leadership, and Study Skills (see Appendix C). Scores for

adaptive behaviors below 40 are considered to be At-risk, and below 30 are Clinically

Significant (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2006).

Student Maladaptive Behavior. Dependent Variable (Y4), had the possible values

of 0-120. The BASC-II, TRS was used to measure maladaptive student behaviors. This

instrument provides ratio level data as T-scores and percentiles. T-scores have a mean of

50 and a standard deviation of 10. Maladaptive behaviors are: Aggression, Anxiety,

Attention Problems, Atypicality, Conduct Problems, Depression, Hyperactivity, Learning

Problems, Somatization, and Withdrawal (see Appendix D for descriptions). Scores for

maladaptive behaviors above 60 are considered to be At-risk, and above 70 are Clinically

Significant (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2006).

77

Procedures

This section will present the procedures carried out in order to conduct the

research. The procedures will be presented in the chronological order in which they were

presented during the eight-month study. Once Institutional Review Board approval was

obtained, informed consent letters were secured from the participating school board and

its teachers. Information letters were then given to parents and students, and the study

was initiated (see Ethical Assurances section of this chapter for details). Students in the

participating school district were randomly assigned by the school district to appropriate

grade-level classes at the beginning of the school year; participating classrooms were

randomly assigned to control and experimental groups and pre-intervention measures

were gathered before beginning the intervention in October 2008. Then intervention was

conducted for the experimental group from October 2008 through May 2009. At the end

of May, data from post-intervention measures were gathered (see Data Collection,

Processing, and Analysis section of this chapter for details). A flowchart giving the

chronological order of the procedures is presented in Figure 3.

Examining theEffects of Brain Gym Interventions on Student Academic Performance and Behaviors

Random Assignmentof Students to Classrooms & Random assignment of Classrooms to Groups

Experimental Group Control Group

Pretest Standardized

Assessment Scores

(2008 TAKS Reading, TAKS Math, & BASC-II)

Pretest Standardized

Assessment Scores

(2008 TAKS Reading, TAKS Math, & BASC-II)

Training for Staff & Students and

Implement Brain Gym for Experimental Group

Posttest Standardized

Assessment Scores

(2009 TAKS Reading, TAKS Math, & BASC-II)

Posttest Standardized

Assessment Scores

(2009 TAKS Reading, TAKS Math, & BASC-II)

Statistical Analysis Two-tailed independent samples t test for 2008 measures.

(to identify any significant pre-existing group's differences) Two-tailed independent samples / test for 2009 difference scores measures

(to identify significant posttest groups differences)

Interpret theEffects of Brain Gym on Student

Academic Performance and Behaviors

Figure 3. Flowchart of the research procedures.

79

The 'Brain Gym' Three Day Rotation Plan (Meders, 2000) was chosen as the

intervention. Training for the intervention was introduced October 23, 2008 for a month.

Three students were randomly selected from each experimental group classroom to be

'Brain Gym' student leaders. A licensed 'Brain Gym' instructor taught the 'Brain Gym'

Curriculum movements to the student leaders. They, in turn, taught classmates with the

instructor present. Training for the student leaders was provided over four weeks divided

into four, 30-minute sessions.

Four basic movements were taught to student leaders during the first week. These

movements are referred to as "foundational movements" or 'PACE', and are completed

before other movements (Meders, 2000). Student leaders for each classroom then taught

classmates the 'PACE' movements. Once 'PACE' was implemented in the classrooms

and the class had become familiar with it over the course of a week, additional

movements were taught to student leaders.

Student leaders were introduced to additional day-one morning and afternoon

movements included in the 'Brain Gym' Curriculum during the second week. Student

leaders were given a week to review 'PACE' with the class and teach classmates day-one

movements. During the third week, the instructor taught student leaders the movements

included in day-two morning and afternoon of the 'Brain Gym' Curriculum. Student

leaders returned to class and led classmates in day-two activities. The class practiced

day-two movements again on the following day. For the remainder of the third week, the

class alternated between day-one and day-two movements.

The 'Brain Gym' instructor taught student leaders day-three morning and

afternoon movements in the fourth week. 'Alphabet Eights', part of 'Brain Gym'

Curriculum day-three afternoon movements, was omitted due to limited materials. This

movement was replaced with the 'Lazy Eights' because the movements cross the same

midlines (see Methodological Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations section of this

chapter for details). Student leaders returned to class and led classmates in the day-three

activities. The class practiced day-three movements again on the following day. For the

remainder of the study, the class alternated between day-one, day-two, and day-three

movements.

In order to ensure integrity of the intervention, the instructor provided additional

coaching in each experimental classroom, while student leaders trained classmates

throughout the four-week implementation process. Classrooms were also provided with

detailed illustrations of the daily movements, music that guided the class through the

movements, and contact information for the 'Brain Gym' instructor in the event that

additional classroom supports were needed. Teachers submitted a monthly calendar to the

researcher, recording the morning and afternoons that the class completed the 'Brain

Gym' activities. Over the course of the eight-months, the 'Brain Gym' instructor and

researcher periodically visited classes in order to promote fidelity of the intervention.

Several concerns arose during the intervention. First, the original plan was to

provide 'Brain Gym' training to teachers included in the experimental group and allow

teachers to implement to intervention. However, their time constraints resulted in

scheduling conflicts. This obstacle, as noted above, was overcome by allowing student

participation in training and leading classroom 'Brain Gym' activities. Second, the

'Alphabet Eights' movement requires a laminated poster for each student. Students use

the poster to trace each letter of the alphabet on an 'Alphabet Eights' pattern without

81

picking up their finger between letters. Lack of sufficient posters resulted in omitting the

'Alphabet Eights' movement for the majority of students in the study. However, this

movement was replaced with a similar movement, the 'Lazy Eights' (see Methodological

Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations section of this chapter for details). Third,

providing water to students was challenging since classrooms did not have water

fountains and students did not consistently bring water bottles to school. To solve this

problem, individual water bottles were provided for each student and the classrooms were

provided with fresh water daily throughout the study.

In April/May 2009, post-intervention measures were gathered (see Data

Collection, Processing and Analysis section of this chapter for details). At the conclusion

of the study, teachers in the experimental group chose to meet informally with the

researcher to discuss their impressions of using 'Brain Gym' in the classroom. Students

were also allowed to vocalize how they felt about the 'Brain Gym' program and ask

questions.

Data Collection, Processing, and Analysis

The first research question asked, "What is the effect ofDennison 's 26 'Brain

Gym' movements as a general education class-wide intervention on primary grade-level

(third through sixth grades) student academic performance as measured by the TAKS

Reading and TAKS Math tests? " The second research question asked, "What is the effect

ofDennison's 26 'Brain Gym' movements as a general education tier-one intervention

within the Rtlprocess on primary grade-level (third through sixth grades) at-risk student

academic performance as measured by the TAKS Reading and TAKS Math tests? " In

order to answer these questions, data were collected using 2008 and 2009 TAKS Reading

and Math tests.

After TAKS tests are administered, they are sent to TEA for scoring and the

results are mailed to the school districts and downloaded into DMAC. Students who

scored below 2100 on the 2008 TAKS test were identified as at-risk. Two-tailed

independent samples t tests were used to analyze 2008 standard scores to determine if any

significant differences between the control and experimental groups existed before

implementing the intervention. Then change scores were calculated to determine if there

were significant differences between the groups following the intervention. Change

scores were calculated by finding the differences between the 2008 and 2009 standard

scores.

The third research question asked, "What is the effect ofDennison 's 26 'Brain

Gym' movements as a general education class-wide intervention on primary grade-level

(second through sixth grades) student behaviors as measured by the BASC-II teacher

behavior rating instrument?'''' The fourth research question asked, "What is the effect of

Dennison 's 26 'Brain Gym' movements as a general education tier-one intervention

within the Rtlprocess on primary grade-level (second through sixth grades) at-risk

student behaviors as measured by the BASC-II teacher behavior rating instrument? " In

order to answer these questions, data were collected utilizing the BASC-II, TRS.

The BASC-II, TRS was completed by two teachers who provided instruction for

students participating in the study. The BASC-II, TRS data were input into the BASC-II

Scoring Assistant, a program developed by Riverside Publishing (2008). Validity scales

83

were examined in order to determine if the ratings were likely to be an accurate reflection

of the students' behaviors.

The BASC-II requires 20-30 minutes to complete, so it was not feasible to rate all

364 students included in the study. To maintain the minimum power when robust

statistical procedures are utilized (Heiman, 2003) three students in each participating

classroom were randomly selected and rated by teachers. The BASC-II teacher ratings

were completed in October 2008 and May 2009 on the BASC-II, TRF. Ratings were

completed and returned for 48 students in the research sample. The 2008 BASC-II

standard scores were utilized to identify and minimize any pre-existing significant

differences between the control and experimental groups. Change scores were calculated

to determine if there were significant differences between the groups following the

eight-month intervention. Change scores were calculated by finding the differences

between the 2008 and 2009 BASC-II standard scores.

In order to process and analyze the data, SPSS 16.0 was used. Students in the

control group were coded with a zero and experimental groups were coded with a one.

The TAKS standard scores and BASC-II standardized T-scores were recorded as raw data.

Pre-intervention measures were the April and May 2008 TAKS reading and math and

October 2008 BASC-II standard scores. Academic and behavior measures were calculated

by finding the change between 2009 and 2008 TAKS tests and BASC-II standard scores.

Two-tailed independent samples / tests for data analysis and a sample size of at

least 30 was utilized for this study in order to decrease the likelihood of making Type I

and Type II errors when evaluating research hypotheses. Rationale for the research

design is built on several statistical premises: Two-tailed t tests evaluate the hypothesis

without adding the possibility of error in predicting whether scores will increase or

decrease (Heiman, 2003); Robust statistical procedures such as t tests produce results that

have only a negligible amount of error in estimating the probability of a Type I error;

Increasing statistical power produces results that have only a negligible amount of error

in estimating the probability of a Type II error. A sample size of 30 is required for

adequate power and increasing the sample size to 121 added substantially to statistical

power for the study (Heiman, 2003). Academic measures for this study included 68

at-risk students for reading measures, 73 at-risk students for math measures, and 48

participants for classroom behavior measures. Therefore, no measure contained fewer

than 30 subjects. Furthermore, an alpha level of .05 was selected for statistical analysis in

the study since .05 is considered the maximum acceptable rate for Type I errors without

increasing the likelihood of a Type II error (Bordens & Abbott, 2005). Furthermore,

specific assumptions must be met for accurate use of robust statistical analyses such as

t tests. The design of this study included instruments and statistical procedures to ensure

the t test assumptions were met (see Data Collection, Processing, and Analysis section of

this chapter for details). This information should add confidence that the research design

used in this study is acceptable when making decisions regarding rejecting or accepting

the research hypotheses.

Independent samples two-tailed t tests were run to determine if there were

significant differences between the experimental and control groups' means on academic

or behavior measures. Participants were randomly assigned to appropriate grade-level

classes by the school district and participating classrooms were then randomly assigned

to either control or experimental groups. The groups are considered to be independent, so

85

independent samples t tests are appropriate. According to Heiman (2003), accurately

utilizing t tests requires several assumptions: dependent variable measures must yield

ratio level data; data must have a normal distribution; samples must have homogeneity of

variance; groups' size should not be massively unequal. Therefore, the data were

analyzed to determine if / test assumptions could be considered met.

Statistical procedures for data analysis included descriptive statistics, Levene 's

Test for Equal Variance, and appropriate independent samples two-tailed t tests. The

SPSS 16.0 set to a significance level of .05 was used for all statistical. Pre-intervention

measures were examined to see if there were significant differences between the

experimental groups' means. Where there were no significant pre-existing differences

between the experimental and control group, any significant differences between the

groups' means on post-intervention measures were deemed to be due to the effects of the

'Brain Gym' intervention. Where significant differences occurred on post-intervention

measures, groups' statistics were then compared to see if the 'Brain Gym' intervention

had positive or negative effects on student performance.

Methodological Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations

This section will include the assumptions associated with the research design,

limitations of the study, and delimitations. Any assumptions associated with the

application of the results to the population will be discussed at the outset. This will

include a brief review of the research sample and research design in order to evaluate

where generalizations are appropriate. Next, research limitations and any external or

internal threats to validity of the study will be presented. Any delimitations that resulted

during the study, and how they were resolved, will conclude the chapter.

86

Gall, Gall, and Borg (2007) cautioned against making assumptions beyond the

scope of the actual research. In this study, the effects of'Brain Gym' as a classroom

behavior intervention and as an academic intervention within the Rtl process for at-risk

students beginning to show signs of struggling were measured and evaluated. However,

the effects of'Brain Gym' for secondary grade-level students, special population

students, and academic concerns other than reading and math were not evaluated.

Therefore, any generalizations of the findings of this study to these populations should be

made with caution.

The study was implemented to evaluate the effects of Dennison's 26 'Brain Gym'

movements on general education primary grade-level students' academic performance

and behaviors. However, the purpose of this study did not include comparing and

contrasting 'Brain Gym' to other movement-based programs. Also, the study did not

evaluate if other movement-based programs also effectively cross the three midlines of

the human body. Although other educational kinesiology programs, such as 'Smart

Moves', use movement to enhance learning and positive behaviors, applying results of

this study to other movement-based interventions that address student needs is research.

Two factors that posed a threat to the internal validity of this research occurred

over the course of the study. First, one teacher revoked consent to participate in the study

before beginning the intervention. Second, during the intervention, one of the 'Brain

Gym' movements was replaced with another of the 'Brain Gym' Curriculum's 26

movements.

One teacher in the experimental group dropped out of the study prior to

implementation of the intervention. The teacher was a first-year teacher and felt

87

overwhelmed by the job's regular responsibilities. The entire campus was included in the

sample so this teacher's decision did not result in large differences between control and

experimental group sizes. Therefore, omitting the class from the experimental group

sample did not compromise research integrity.

Because all experimental group classrooms did not receive an 'Alphabet Eights'

poster, the movement was unable to be implemented consistently. However, in these

classrooms, the 'Lazy Eights' movement replaced it. The movements are similar and

cross the same midlines (Dennison, 2003). Therefore, it is unlikely that replacing the

'Alphabet Eights' with the 'Lazy Eights' in some of the experimental groups' classrooms

had a significant impact on student reading and math academic performance or behaviors.

Potential threats to validity included experimenter bias, treatment fidelity,

strength of treatment effect, mortality, and interaction of pretest measures on the final

results, and sample size. Sample size limitations were noted for the behavior measures

and at-risk academic measures when projected power calculations indicated that 126

participants were needed to have 80% power. Power is needed when the null hypothesis

is accepted to ensure that the possibility of making a Type II error is minimized (Heiman,

2003). Treatment effect increases as sample size increases, so academic measures that

may be affected by this include at-risk academic measures and all behavior measures.

The behavior measures portion included only 42 participants for classroom measures and

30 at-risk students. The academic measures component included only 68 at-risk students

for reading and 73 at-risk students for math. Therefore, the sample size may not have

been sufficient to confidently reject the null hypothesis for these groups, especially when

analysis of the results indicated that the null hypothesis should be accepted.

88

Studies have identified external threats to validity due to experimental treatment,

interaction of any pre-intervention measures, and research mortality for post-intervention

measures (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2007). However, treatment effects were minimized by

informing teachers in the control group of the opportunity to receive the 'Brain Gym'

intervention at the conclusion of the study. Pretest measures were not likely to influence

the results since students are required to take the TAKS tests annually. Since the

intervention was implemented for eight months, mortality was a concern and 67 students

were dropped from the study.

Other threats to validity include researcher bias, treatment validity, and

insufficient strength of the treatment. Researcher bias was likely to be minimal since

students were trained by a 'Brain Gym' instructor and then implemented the intervention.

Treatment fidelity concerns were addressed by providing teachers with a 'Brain Gym'

curriculum, a means of monitoring the intervention, and documentation of the

implementation for teachers. The study's longevity helped to improve the strength of the

treatment.

Ethical Concerns

Ethical considerations for the study included: obtaining IRB acceptance; ensuring

the participating school district and teachers received and understood the meaning of

informed consent and were aware that consent was voluntary and may be revoked at

anytime; protecting teacher privacy rights to prevent any feelings of workplace coercion;

protecting student privacy rights related to their performance on the standardized

assessments; and allowing parents and students to verbalize any concerns about

participating in the study. Parties included in the consent process were Northcentral

89

University's IRB, the participating school district, campus administrators, teachers,

students and their parents.

Providing information that allows potential participants to make informed

voluntary decisions is essential to the consent process (Jacob & Hartshorne, 2008). For

this study, the consent process included seeking approval of the school district's

curriculum director, superintendent, and school board. The district was informed of the

nature and purpose of the research and representatives were informed that consent may

be withdrawn at any time before or during the study. The district agreed and signed the

consent form in October 2008.

Once the district had consented, an information sheet was provided to the

appropriate teachers and administrators. The teacher information sheet included basic

information about the research, assured educators that participation is voluntary,

informed the participants that consent may be revoked at any time, and explained how

privacy would be protected. All teachers and administrators who received an information

sheet signed to agree to participate in the study. Parent and student information sheets

were then provided for students in classrooms involved in the study. The information

sheets allowed educator, parent, and student concerns to be addressed prior to the study.

No concerns were reported during the study.

Summary

This study was designed to determine the effect 'Brain Gym' has on general

education primary grade-level student academic performance (in reading and math) and

behaviors. In order to accomplish this, an experimental quantitative model was used and

several chronological steps were followed: the IRB Board accepted the research proposal

90

and consent was obtained from the school district and teachers participating in the study

(see Appendixes F, G, and H); information letters were provided for the participating

students and their parents in order to address any objections or concerns before the

intervention was implemented (see Appendixes I and J). No concerns were raised. After

these steps were completed, the 'Brain Gym' Three Day Rotation Plan was started. Data

was collected, processed, and analyzed. Standardized state and nationally-normed

instruments, including TAKS math and reading tests and the BASC-II Teacher Rating

Form, were used to provide academic and behavior measures. The SPSS 16.0 with a

significance level of .05 was used to process and analyze the data. Statistical analysis of

the data included the use of descriptive statistics, Levene's Test of Equal Variance, and

independent samples two-tailed t tests to determine if the intervention had any significant

effect on general education primary grade-level students' academic performance (reading

and math) or behaviors. Caution should be exercised in making generalizations beyond

the scope of this study, including generalizations of the finding to secondary grade-level

students, special populations, and academic subjects other than reading and math, or to

other movement-based programs.

91

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS

The purpose of this quantitative experimental study was to examine the effects of

Dennison's 26 'Brain Gym' movements as a tier-one Rtl and a class-wide general

education intervention on primary grade-level student (at-risk as well as overall

populations) academic performance and behaviors as measured by the TAKS Reading,

TAKS Math, and BASC-II instruments, (see Appendixes A, B, C, and D). Teachers report

that 54% of the students in public school are struggling academically (Baker, Kamphaus,

Home & Windsor, 2006). Teachers also report that student behaviors are one of the

greatest obstacles to providing effective instruction (Baker et al., 2006). Tier-one Rtl

interventions are designed to effectively address 80-85% of struggling students' academic

and behavior concerns and are implemented in the general education classroom (National

Association of Special Education Directors, 2005). Therefore, the Three Day Rotation

Plan was implemented in participating primary grade-level general education classrooms

over an eight-month period. Implementing 'Brain Gym' in participating classrooms

allowed for an evaluation of the program's effects as a class-wide intervention and as an

intervention within the Rtl process for at-risk primary grade-level general education

students.

Findings from this study will be presented in this chapter and may help educators

determine if 'Brain Gym' can provide an essential service for classroom management and

also be an academic intervention for at-risk and overall populations of primary

grade-level students within the general education setting and Rtl framework. Results of

the teachers' 'Brain Gym' activity logs will be discussed first in order to verify the

fidelity of intervention implementation. Next, the effects of'Brain Gym' on reading and

92

math performance for the overall general education and at-risk students will be described.

Beginning with a review of the research questions and hypotheses associated with the

academic measures (including an overview of academic measures, description of the

classroom and at-risk experiential and control group participants) the discussion will

continue with results of the TAKS reading and math tests an associated data analysis will

be given. The effects of 'Brain Gym' as a classroom behavior management strategy and

tier-one behavior intervention for students demonstrating behavior concerns will then be

covered. Included in this portion will be research questions and hypotheses associated

with the behavior measures, an introduction to them, a description of the overall

classroom and at-risk control and experimental group participants, a review of the results

of the BASC-II teacher rating instrument, and a review of data analysis. The chapter will

conclude with a summary of the major findings.

Fidelity of the 'Brain Gym' Intervention

Teacher logs were used to record classroom 'Brain Gym' activities as

implemented during this study. The intent was for the intervention to last eight months in

order to give students ample time to realize the full benefits of the program, while

allowing time for adjustments to the realities of a school environment. The results of the

teachers' 'Brain Gym' logs indicate the level of fidelity to the intervention, which greatly

influences potential effects of using 'Brain Gym' as an intervention in schools. Therefore,

this information is vital to interpreting results of this study.

Teachers' 'Brain Gym' logs indicate that students in the experiential group

participated in 'Brain Gym' activities 75-95% of the recommended time over the course

of the study. Two teachers implemented the intervention 80% of the time, and one had a

93

95% level. The majority of teachers implemented 'Brain Gym' 85% of the time. During

the eight-month study, monthly averages ranged between 80% and 90%; weekly ranges

were 75-100%. According to teachers' logs, students in the experimental group generally

participated in morning and afternoon 'Brain Gym' activities. Therefore, using the results

presented in this section is likely to yield an accurate picture of the effects of 'Brain

Gym' as an intervention.

Overview of Students' Academic Performance

In order to evaluate the effects of 'Brain Gym' on at-risk as well as overall

populations of general education primary grade-level students' academic performance,

two research questions were developed and their associated hypotheses were tested. The

first research question asked, "What is the effect ofDennison 's 26 'Brain Gym'

movements as a general education class-wide intervention on primary grade-level (third

through sixth grades) student academic performance as measured by the TAKS Reading

and TAKS Math tests? " To answer the first question it was hypothesized that,

"Dennison 's 26 'Brain Gym' movements, as a general education class-wide intervention,

have no significant effect on primary grade-level (third through sixth grades) student

academic performance as measured by the TAKS Reading and TAKS Math tests. " The

second research question asked, "What is the effect ofDennison's 26 'Brain Gym'

movements as a general education tier-one intervention within the Rtlprocess on

primary grade-level (third through sixth grades) at-risk student academic performance as

measured by the TAKS Reading and TAKS Math test? " To answer this question it was

hypothesized that, "Dennison's 26 'Brain Gym' movements, as a general education

tier-one intervention within the Rtl process, have no significant effect on primary

grade-level (third through sixth grades) at-risk student academic performance as

measured by the TAKS Reading and TAKS Math tests. "

Effects of 'Brain Gym' on Students Academic Performance

The TAKS tests provided measures of student reading and math performance (see

Appendixes A and B). The 2008 TAKS reading and math standard scores were gathered

to determine if any significant differences between the control and experimental groups

existed prior to implementing the 'Brain Gym' intervention. From October 2008 through

May 2009, the 'Brain Gym' Three Day Rotation Plan was implemented in participating

classrooms in the experimental group. Each classroom in the research sample had some

students who were beginning to show signs of struggling and in need of tier-one (i.e.,

appropriate for implementing in the general education classroom) reading and math

interventions. 'Brain Gym' as a class-wide intervention allowed for examination of its

effects on participating general education classrooms and on participants at-risk of failing

reading or math. At the conclusion of the study, April and May 2009 TAKS reading and

math scores were gathered. The change between 2009 and 2008 TAKS results was

calculated and were examined to determine if there were significant differences between

the control and experimental groups' reading and math performance.

Description of the Groups Participating in 'Brain Gym' Academic Measures

Class-wide academic measures included all general education students in the

participating classrooms. Therefore, the general education group consisted of students

proficient in reading and math as well as those struggling in these subjects. The control

group (n = 136) and the experimental group (n = 161) were of similar size. The 2008

TAKS Reading standard scores for the class-wide control group had an average of

95

2234.22 and the experimental group had an average of 2235.80. The 2008 TAKSMath

standards score averaged 2240.91 for the control group and 2225.14 for the experimental

group. These averages are well above the score of 2100 required to meet minimum

standards set by the State of Texas (TEA, 2008c). The sample for class-wide intervention

contained both students who are proficient in reading and math and those who are

struggling so it was expected that the average for this group exceed minimum standards.

Tier-one reading and math interventions are appropriate for students who are

beginning to show signs of struggling in these areas. The 2008 TAKS reading and math

test scores identified at-risk students. Students who scored below 2100 on the 2008 TAKS

tests were included in the at-risk group. As the sample for tier-one intervention included

only students in the participating classrooms who were struggling in these areas, the

sample size for tier-one measures was considerably smaller than that for class-wide

measures. The number of participants at-risk for failing math (n = 73) was slightly higher

than reading (n = 68). The at-risk control group was 27 students for reading measures and

30 for math; the at-risk experimental group included 41 students for reading measures

and 43 for math. These differences are not considered to be large enough to threaten the

accurate use of robust statistics such as t tests (Heiman, 2003).

The at-risk group's standard scores on 2008 TAKS tests averaged 1994.09 on

reading measures and 1996.60 on math measures, which were well below the score of

2100 required to meet minimum for each scale (TEA, 2008c). The sample for tier-one

interventions contained only students struggling in reading and math, it was expected the

average for this group would be lower than the required minimum standards.

Students in the general education and at-risk control and experimental groups'

distribution of standard scores were normal with no significant skew or kurtosis for the

reading or math measures (see Table 1). Table 1 also shows that the variance between the

academic measures for each of the groups was similar according to the results of

Levene 's Test for Homogeneity of Variance (or, Test for Equality of Variances). The

results of these statistical procedures combined with the fact that the groups were of

similar size indicated that ratio level data met assumptions necessary for accurate use of

t tests.

According to the results of the independent samples two-tailed t tests with equal

variance assumed, there were no significant differences between control and

experimental 2008 TAKS reading or the math standard scores (see Table 1). Therefore,

the control and experimental groups' reading or math performance on the TAKS test did

not have significant pre-existing differences before implementing 'Brain Gym' as an

intervention. Any significant differences between the groups' performance on the 2009

TAKS tests are thus not likely due to pre-existing differences.

97

Table 1

Statistics for 2008 TAKS Measures

Mean Stand. Deviation Skewness Stand. Error of Skew Kurtosis Stand. Error of Kurtosis Test

Reading Math

Reading Math

F

0.178 1.370

0.539 0.928

General Education Group Reading

2235.070 184.890

0.053 0.141

-0.134 0.282

Sig.

0.673 0.243

0.466 0.339

Math 2232.390

200.300 0.384 0.141 0.126 0.281

t 4f General Education Group

-0.073 0.677

At-risk Group -1.371 0.093

295 296

66 71

At-risk Reading

1994.090 90.150 -0.594 0.291 0.593 0.574

Sig.

0.942 0.499

0.175 0.926

Group Math

1996.600 93.480 -0.833 0.281

-0.252 0.555

MDiff.

-1.574 15.769

-30.430 2.089

Note. Statistics are based on 2008 TAKS standard scores. F = Levene's test for homogneity of variance, t = two-tailed independent samples t test with/> < .05 significance and equal variance assumed, significance. M Diff. = mean difference.

Sig.=

Results of 'Brain Gym' as an Academic Intervention

General education primary grade-level students (at-risk and overall sample of

participants) receiving 'Brain Gym' over an eight-month period demonstrated greater

improvements in reading and math when measured by the TAKS Reading and TAKS

Math, compared to students who did not receive the intervention (see Table 2).

Table 2

Group Statistics for 2009 TAKS Change Score Measures TAKS Group N M SD SEM

General Education Group Con 136 44.630 143.285 12.287 Exp 161 60.010 150.371 11.851 Con 137 -3.610 152.080 12.993 Exp 160 1.170 146.663 11.595

At-risk Group Con 27 48.000 132.232 25.448 Exp 41 122.440 146.382 22.861 Con 30 -9.930 130.612 23.846 Exp 43 62.300 121.970 18.600

Note. Statistics are based on 2009 TAKS change scores. Con = control group. Exp = experimental group.

In order to determine if the improvements in reading and math were statistically

significant, assumptions needed for accurate use of t tests were evaluated. The control

and experimental groups' distribution of change scores were normal with no significant

skew or kurtosis for the reading or math measures (see Table 3). Furthermore, as shown

in Table 3, the variance between these academic measures for each group was similar,

according to the results ofLevene 's Test for Homogeneity of Variance. The results of

these statistical procedures, and the fact that the groups did not significantly differ in size,

indicated that ratio level data met assumptions necessary for accurate use of t tests.

In order to test the null hypotheses, results of two-tailed independent samples

t tests with equal variance assumed, were examined. According to t test results, academic

gains were statistically significant at a = .05 for the general education at-risk reading

0(66) = -2.13,/? = .04) and math (r(71) = -2.42,/? = .02) measures (see Table 3).

Therefore, the null hypothesis for the at-risk academic measures was rejected and the

alternative hypothesis, "Dennison 's 26 'Brain Gym' movements, as a general education

Reading

Math

Reading

Math

class-wide intervention, have a significant effect on primary grade-level (third through

sixth grades) student academic performance as measured by the TAKS Reading and

TAKS Math tests, " was accepted at a 95% confidence level.

According to t test results, academic gains were not statistically significant at

a = .05 for general education class-wide reading (7(295) = -.90, p = .37) and math

(t(295) = -.28, p - .78) measures (see Table 3). Results of t tests indicated that the null

hypothesis should be accepted and the alternative hypothesis rejected for the class-wide

group's reading and math measures. However, examining the data revealed that

within-group variability for class-wide group was higher than originally predicted,

resulting in weak statistical power (i.e., 1 - /? = .11). Furthermore, the effect size for this

group was negligible (r2pt = .002) and represented only .01% of what is needed for

minimal power (Heiman, 2003). Sufficient power to confidently accept the null

hypothesis for the general education groups' reading and math class-wide measures was

lacking and meant there was an 89% probability of making a Type II error if the null

hypothesis were accepted. Though the experimental group did experience greater

improvements than the control group even with small effect size and weak statistical

power, accepting the null hypothesis for the class-wide (including students mastering

reading and math as well as those struggling with these subjects) group's reading and

math academic measures was problematic.

Table 3

Statistics for 2009 TAKS Change Score Measures

Mean Standard Deviation Skewness Stand. Error of Skew Kurtosis Stand. Error of Kurtosis

Mean Standard Deviation Skewness Stand. Error of Skew Kurtosis Stand. Error of Kurtosis Test

Reading Math

Reading Math

F

0.465 1.693

0.617 0.332

i

52.960 147.122

0.275 0.141 0.270 0.282

92.880 144.653

0.295 0.291 0.588 0.574

Sig.

0.496 0.194

0.435 0.566

General Education Group

At-risk

t

Group

df General Education Group

-0.897 -0.275 At-risk -2.130 -2.418

Group

295 295

66 71

-1.030 148.952

0.175 0.141 1.427 0.282

32.620 129.730

0.647 0.281 1.461 0.555

Sig.

0.370 0.784

0.037 0.018

MDiffi

-15.381 17.365

-74.439 -72.236

Note. Statistics are based on 2009 TAKS change scores. F = Levene's test for homogneity of variance. Sig. = significance. / = two-tailed independent samples / test with/? < .05 significance and equal variance assumed. M Difl = mean diflerene.

In summary, general education primary grade-level students receiving 'Brain

Gym' for eight months demonstrated greater gains in reading and math as measured by

TAKS tests, compared to students who did not receive the intervention. These gains were

statistically significant at a = .05 for students at-risk of failing reading and math.

Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected and the alternative hypothesis was accepted

with a 95% level of confidence for these measures. Reading and math gains for the

general education class-wide academic measures were not statistically significant so the

null hypothesis was accepted and the alternative hypothesis was rejected. However, the

within-group variability for the general education group was higher than originally

101

predicted, resulting in weak statistical power (I - B = . 11) and small effect size for this

group (i.e., r2pt = .002). This means there was an 89% probability of making a Type II

error. The experimental group did experience greater improvements than the control

group; however, because the effect size was small, accepting the null hypothesis for these

class-wide academic measures was questionable. The results demonstrate that 'Brain

Gym' did improve primary grade-level general education and at-risk students' reading

and math performance. However, these improvements were statistically significant only

for students identified as at-risk in reading or math and in need of Rtl academic

interventions.

Overview of Students' Behaviors

In order to evaluate the effects of 'Brain Gym' on at-risk as well as overall

populations of general education primary grade-level student academic performance, two

research questions were developed and the associated hypotheses were tested. The third

research question asked, "What is the effect ofDennison 's 26 'Brain Gym' movements as

a general education class-wide intervention on primary grade-level (second through sixth

grades) student behaviors as measured by the BASC-II teacher behavior rating

instrument?" To answer this question, it was hypothesized that, "Dennison 's 26 'Brain

Gym' movements, as a general education class-wide intervention, have no significant

effect on primary grade-level (second through sixth grades) student behaviors as

measured by the BASC-II teacher behavior rating instrument. " The fourth research

question asked, "What is the effect ofDennison's 26 'Brain Gym' movements as a

general education tier-one intervention within the Rtl process on primary grade-level

(second through sixth grades) at-risk student behaviors as measured by the BASC-II

teacher behavior rating instrument? " In order to answer the fourth research question it

was hypothesized that, "Dennison 's 26 'Brain Gym' movements, as a general education

tier-one intervention within the Rtlprocess, have no significant effect on primary

grade-level (second through sixth grades) at-risk student behaviors as measured by the

BASC-II teacher behavior rating instrument. "

Effects of 'Brain Gym' on Students' Behaviors

The BASC-II teacher rating instrument provided measures of students' Adaptive

(adaptability, social skills, leadership, functional communication, study skills),

Externalizing (aggression, conduct problems, and hyperactivity), Internalizing (anxiety,

depression, and withdrawal), Behavior Symptoms (somatization and atypicality), and

School Problem (attention and learning problems) behaviors (see Appendixes A, B, C,

and D). Behaviors are divided into adaptive and maladaptive behaviors. Adaptive

behaviors include the Adaptive Behavior scale, and maladaptive behavior includes the

Externalizing, Internalizing, Behavior Symptoms, and School Problem behavior scales.

Teachers participating in the study completed the BASC-II rating for three randomly

selected students in their classroom in October 2008. These BASC-II standard scores

were gathered to determine if any significant differences between control and

experimental groups existed before starting the 'Brain Gym' intervention. In October

2008 through May 2009, the 'Brain Gym' Three Day Rotation Plan was implemented in

participating classrooms in the experimental group. Each classroom in the research

sample contained some students who were beginning to show signs of struggling and in

need of tier-one (general education classroom) behavior interventions. Implementing

'Brain Gym' as a class-wide intervention therefore permitted examining the effect of

'Brain Gym' on participating general education classrooms as a whole and on

participants demonstrating behavior concerns. Teachers were asked to complete BASC-II

ratings in May 2009 for the students rated in October 2008. The change between 2009

and 2008 BASC-II standard scores were then calculated for each student. These change

scores were examined to determine if there were significant differences between control

and experimental groups' adaptive and maladaptive behaviors at the conclusion of this

study. All participants were included in the class-wide measures; however, only

participants identified as at-risk were included in tier-one intervention measures.

The BASC-II teacher rating forms contain three validity scales: F-index, Response

Pattern, and Consistency. These scales fall within Acceptable, Caution, or Extreme

Caution ranges. When validity scales fall within the Acceptable range, ratings are likely

to be a true representation of a student's behaviors and interpretations may be made with

confidence (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2006). The majority of the BASC-II teacher ratings

(92.71%) had validity scales within the Acceptable range. The validity scales had such a

high percentage of ratings in the Acceptable range so it is likely that behavior measures

for this study are valid (see Table 4).

Table 4

BASC-II Validity Scale

F-Index Response Pattern Acceptable 89 95 Caution 5 1 Extreme Caution 2 0_ Note. Validity scales include the BASC-II 2008 and 2009 ratings.

Descriptions of Groups Participating in 'Brain Gym' Behavior Measures

Class-wide measures included all general education students participating in the

study. According to the 2008 BASC-II teacher ratings, control and experimental groups'

Consistency 92 4 0

means were within the Average range (see Table 5). These groups' pre-intervention

behaviors were within normal limits compared to same-age peers. These results were

expected since the sample contains both students who were functioning well and those

who were demonstrating behavior concerns. Class-wide behavior measures included

approximately 13% of the primary grade-level general education students. The control

group included 22 students and the experimental group contained 26 students, so the

groups' sizes were similar.

The October 2008 BASC-II teacher ratings were used to identify students that

were at-risk and in need of tier-one interventions. The BASC-II Adaptive behavior scores

between 40 and 31 are considered to be within the At-Risk range and below 30 are

considered to be Clinically Significant. Maladaptive behaviors (Externalizing,

Internalizing, Behavior Symptoms, and School Problem behaviors) scores between 60

and 69 are considered to be within the At-Risk range; above 70 are considered to be

Clinically Significant. According to Reynolds and Kamphaus (2008), students with

scores in the At-Risk and Clinically Significant ranges are considered to be in need of

behavior intervention. Therefore, students with 2008 BASC-II ratings within the At-Risk

or Clinically Significant ranges were included in at-risk groups to evaluate the effect of

'Brain Gym' as a tier-one behavior intervention.

Because the sample for tier-one intervention included only students struggling

with behaviors, the sample size was considerably smaller than the sample size for

class-wide intervention. There were 30 students identified on the 2008 BASC-II ratings as

struggling with behavior concerns. The control group included 12 students and the

experimental group included 18 students demonstrating behavior concerns. This

105

difference is not considered large enough to pose a threat to the accurate use of robust

statistics such as / tests.

Tier-one control and experimental groups' average scores on the 2008 BASC-JI

ratings for behavior measures were within the At-Risk range (see Table 5). Since the

sample for tier-one interventions contained only students demonstrating behavior

concerns, it was expected that the averages for this group would fall within the At-Risk to

Clinically Significant range. This means the students included in the at-risk group were

demonstrating noticeably higher levels of behavior concerns than same age peers.

The general education and at-risk control and experimental groups' distribution of

Externalizing, Internalizing, Behavior Symptoms, School Problems, and Adaptive

behavior standard scores were normal with no significant skew or kurtosis (see Table 5).

Also, as shown in Table 5, Levene 's Test for Homogeneity of Variance indicated that

group variance was similar. The results of these statistical analyses, and the fact that the

groups were similar in size, ratio level data meant assumptions necessary for accurate use

of/tests.

According to the results of the independent samples two-tailed / tests with equal

variance assumed, there were no statistically significant differences between these

groups' behavior measures on the 2008 BASC-II (see Table 5). This meant no significant

differences existed between control and experimental groups' Externalizing,

Internalizing, Behavior Symptoms, School Problems, or Adaptive behaviors before

implementing 'Brain Gym' as an intervention. The general education and at-risk control

and experimental groups' behaviors were not significantly different before implementing

the intervention so any significant differences between groups on these measures at the

end of the study are likely due to the effect of 'Brain Gym'.

Table 5

Statistics for 2008 BASC-II Measures

Mean Stand. Deviation Skewness Stand. Error of Skew Kurtosis Stand. Error of Kurtosis

Mean Stand. Deviation Skewness Stand. Error of Skew Kurtosis Stand. Error of Kurtosis Test

Adaptive External Internal School Problems BSI

Adaptive External Internal School Problems BSI

F

0.597 0.545 0.011 0.087 0.118

0.786 0.248 1.103 0.939 0.029

Adaptive

44.540 11.357 0.081 0.343

-1.006 0.674

37.730 8.473 0.955 0.427 1.054 0.833

Sig.

0.444 0.464 0.919 0.769 0.732

0.383 0.623 0.303 0.341 0.865

External Internal Sch. Prb. General Education Group

57.730 14.805 0.841 0.343

-0.184 0.674

49.520 11.078

1.003 0.343

-0.075 0.674

At-risk Group 65.000 13.948 0.456 0.427

-0.576 0.833

t

54.430 11.258 0.427 0.427

-0.833 0.833

df General Education Group

1.973 -1.343 -1.692 -1.906 -1.167

46 46 46 46 46

At-risk Group 0.210 0.164 0.056 0.158 0.459

28 28 28 28 28

55.920 11.438 0.476 0.343

-0.759 0.674

61.700 9.617 0.230 0.427

-1.213 0.833

Sig.

0.054 0.186 0.097 0.063 0.249

0.835 0.871 0.955 0.875 0.650

BSI

55.920 15.241 0.918 0.343

-0.045 0.674

63.800 14.153 0.524 0.427

-0.347 0.833

MDiff

6.301 -5.710 -5.325 -6.147 -5.133

0.700 0.900 0.250 0.600 2.550

Note. Statistics are based on 2008 BASC-II standard scores. Sch. Prb. = School Problems. BSI = Behavior Symptoms Index. F = Levene's test for homogneiry of variance, t = two-tailed independent samples t test with/? < .05 significance and equal variance assumed. Sig. = significance. M DifF. = mean differene.

Results of 'Brain Gym' as a Behavior Intervention

General education primary grade-level students (at-risk participants and overall

sample of participants) who received 'Brain Gym' demonstrated greater improvements in

behaviors, as measured by the BASC-II teacher ratings, compared to students who did not

receive the intervention (see Table 6).

Table 6

Group Statistics for 2009 BASC-II Change Score Measures Scale

Adaptive

Externalizing

Internalzing

School Problems

BSI

Adaptive

Externalizing

Internalzing

School Problems

BSI

Group

Con Exp Con Exp Con Exp Con Exp Con Exp

Con Exp Con Exp Con Exp Con Exp Con Exp

N M SD General Education Group

22 26 22 26 22 26 22 26 22 26

-0.050 7.000

-2.140 6.650

-1.680 3.960 0.360 7.080

-0.050 6.120

At-risk Group 12 18 12 18 12 18 12 18 12 18

3.900 9.150 1.500 9.000

-0.700 4.750 2.500 9.000 4.800 8.300

7.662 8.718 9.785 9.204 8.952 7.544 8.878 7.520 9.771 7.881

8.364 8.573

10.427 8.772

12.979 7.820

10.840 6.759

10.840 7.618

SEM

1.634 1.710 2.086 1.805 1.908 1.480 1.893 1.475 2.083 1.546

2.660 1.917 3.297 1.961 4.104 1.748 3.428 1.511 3.428 1.703

Note. Statistics are based on 2009 BASC-II change scores. BSI = Behavior Symptoms Index. Con = control group. Exp = experimental group.

In order to determine if the improvements in behaviors were statistically

significant, assumptions needed for accurate use of t were evaluated. The control and

experimental groups' distribution of change scores were normal with no significant skew

or kurtosis for Externalizing, Internalizing, Behavior Symptoms, School Problems, and

Adaptive behavior measures for both the general education and the at-risk groups (see

Table 7). As shown in Table 7, the variance between these behavior measures for each of

the groups was similar according to the results of Levene 's Test for Homogeneity of

Variance. Based upon these results and the fact that the groups did not significantly differ

in size, ratio level data met assumptions necessary for accurate use of t tests.

In order to test null research hypotheses, results of two-tailed independent

samples t tests, with equal variance assumed, were examined. According to t test results,

behavior improvements were statistically significant at a = .05 for the general education

class-wide behavior measures: Externalizing (7(46) = -3.20, p < .01), Internalizing

(7(46) = -2.37, p = .02), School Problems (7(46) = -2.84,;? = .01), Behavior Symptoms

(7(46) = -2.42,;? = .02), and Adaptive (7(46) = -2.95,;? = .01) behaviors (see Table 7).

Therefore, the null hypothesis for the class-wide behavior measures was rejected and the

alternative hypothesis, "Dennison 's 26 'Brain Gym' movements, as a general education

class-wide intervention, have a significant effect on primary grade-level (second though

sixth grades) student behaviors as measured by the BASC-II teacher behavior rating

instrument." was accepted with a 95% level of confidence.

The effect size for the at-risk group was small (r2pb = .07) indicating that results

may not appear to be significant even when they actually are. According to t test results,

the at-risk behavior group's results were mixed when the null hypothesis was tested.

Behavior improvements were statistically significant at a = .05 for students

demonstrating at-risk levels of School Problem (7(28) = -2.07, p < .05) and Externalizing

(7(28) = -2.07, p < .05) behaviors (see Table 7). Findings indicated that School Problem

and Externalizing behavior improvements for the at-risk group were statically significant

at the 95% confidence level. However, behavior improvements were not statistically

109

significant at a = .05 for students identified as at-risk in the areas of Internalizing

(/(28) = -1.44,p = .16), Behavior Symptoms (7(28) = -1.03,/? = .31), and Adaptive

(f(28) = -1.59, p = .12) behaviors (see Table 7). Examination of data revealed that

within-group variability for these measures was higher than originally predicted resulting

in weak statistical power (7 - /? = .25). This means that there is a 75% probability of

making a Type II error (accepting the null hypothesis when it actually should have been

rejected). The experimental group did experience greater improvements than the control

group even though the effect size was small and statistical power was weak, so accepting

the null hypothesis for the at-risk group's maladaptive and adaptive behavior measures is

questionable. Evaluation of the research hypothesis for the at-risk behavior measures was

confounded due to mixed results.

110

Table 7

Statistics 2009 BASC-II Change Score Measures

Mean Stand. Deviation Skewness Stand. Error of Skew Kurtosis Stand. Error of Kurtosis

Mean Stand. Deviation Skewness Stand. Error of Skew Kurtosis Stand. Error of Kurtosis Test

Adaptive External Internal School Problems BSI

Adaptive External Internal School Problems BSI

F

0.879 0.016 0.252 0.309 0.001

0.220 0.586 1.343 1.896 1.660

Adaptive

3.770 8.902 0.871 0.343 1.350 0.674

7.400 8.744 0.897 0.427 0.655 0.833

Sig.

0.353 0.900 0.618 0.581 0.977

0.643 0.450 0.257 0.179 0.208

External Internal Sch. Prb. General Education Group 2.630

10365 -0.121 0343 0393 0.674

1.380 8.611 0.729 0.343 5.058 0.674

At-risk GrouD 6.500 9.853

-2.060 0.427

-0.189 0.833

/

2.930 9.958 0.398 0.427 4.134 0.833

df General Education Group

-2.947 -3203 -2372 -2.837 -2.418 At-risk* -1.591 -2.074 -1.439 -2.067 -1.029

46 46 46 46 46

3roun 28 28 28 28 28

4.000 8.759

-0.673 0344 0266 0.674

6.830 8.567

-1205 0.427 1.808 0.833

Sig.

0.005 0.002 0.022 0.007 0.020

0.123 0.047 0.161 0.048 0312

BSI

3.290 9.237 0.554 0.343 0.675 0.674

7.130 8.792 0.655 0.427

-0.281 0.833

MDiff.

-7.045 -8.790 -5.644 -6.713 -6.161

-5.250 -7.500 -5.450 -6.500 -3.500

Note. Statistics are based on 2009 BASC-II change scores. Sch. Prb. = School Problems. BSI = Behavior Symptoms Index. F = Levene's test for homogneity of variance, t = two-tailed independent samples t test with/? < .05 significance and equal variance assumed. Sig. = significance. M Diff. = mean difference.

Evaluation of Findings

The goal of this study was to evaluate the effects of Dennison's 26 'Brain Gym'

movements on primary grade-level general education students' academic performance

and behaviors as measured by TAKS Reading, TAKS Math, and BASC-II. To properly

evaluate the study's findings, it is important to examine it from a retrospective viewpoint,

compare the results with the findings of related research and theories from multiple

I l l

disciplines, and appraise the applicability of conclusions drawn from other fields to

education.

Confounding variables are inherent in research and should be considered when

evaluating the results of a study. Possible confounding variables for this study included

underestimating within-group variability for class-wide academic and at-risk behavior

measures, mortality since the study lasted eight months, and interaction caused by

pretesting for the behavior ratings. These variables were unlikely to yield positive results

in this study when there were none due to the high level of confidence built into the

research design (a = .05) when rejecting the null hypothesis. However, underestimating

within-group variability played a significant role for measures where the null hypothesis

was accepted.

Students who participated in 'Brain Gym' activities demonstrated greater

improvements than those who did not receive the intervention; however, these

improvements were not significant for class-wide reading and math or tier-one

Internalizing, Behavior Symptoms, and Adaptive Behavior measures. Within-group

variability for these measures was much greater than originally predicted resulting in

small effect size (r2pb = .002 for academic measures, r2

pb = .07 for behavior measures)

and weak statistical power (1 - ft = . 11 for academic measures; 1 - /? = .25 for behavior

measures). Therefore, the probability of making an error is 89% when utilizing the results

of this study to determine that 'Brain Gym' has no significant effects on general

education students' reading and math performance. The probability of making an error

regarding the efficacy of 'Brain Gym' on at-risk students' anxiety, depression,

withdrawal, somatization, atypicality, and adaptive skills is 75%. The confounding

112

variables associated with underestimating within-group variability limit interpretation and

applicability of the findings of this study for these measures.

Improvements in student performance were statistically significant for classroom

behaviors and at-risk reading, math, Externalizing, and School Problem behavior

measures. These findings indicate that educators can be 95% confident that primary

grade-level general education students who received 'Brain Gym' as a classroom

intervention will demonstrate significant gains in classroom behaviors. There is also a

95% probability that students who are at-risk of failing reading or math, or demonstrate

inappropriate levels of aggression, conduct problems, learning difficulties, hyperactivity,

or attention problems will experience significant gains compared to similar students who

do not receive 'Brain Gym'.

These findings are supported by two previous quasi-experimental studies that also

found 'Brain Gym' had significant positive effects on students' academic performance

and behaviors as measured by the TAKS tests and standardized behavior ratings

(Spalding, 2005; Trahan & Carpenter, 2004). Furthermore, midline movement theory and

perceptual-motor training theory support the findings of this study and provide plausible

explanations as to why 'Brain Gym' movements (which cross the midlines) have a

positive effect on students' academic performance and behaviors. Midline movement

studies conducted in the 1990s and resultant theory indicate that providing frequent

opportunity to cross the three midlines of the human body improves cognitive functions

and emotional regulation (Cores, 1999; Surburg & Eason, 1999; Woodard & Surburg

1999). In addition, perceptual-motor training theory predicts that movement increases the

number of neural pathway connections and thereby results in increased capacity for

113

cognitive functions and more efficient communication throughout the nervous system

(Hannaford, 2005).

In order to appraise the applicability of the findings of this study it is important to

consider educators' perception of the potential value of movement-based programs.

Teachers rated instruction time as the most important variable influencing student

academic performance (Tremarche et al., 2007). Educators also expressed concern that

'Brain Gym' activities would increase classroom disruptive behaviors (Spaulding, 2005).

Therefore, educators are reluctant to implement movement-based programs such as

'Brain Gym' due to negative perceptions regarding the impact on student academic

performance and behavior. Contrary to teacher beliefs, the findings of this study indicated

that primary grade-level general education students who receive 'Brain Gym' as a

classroom intervention demonstrate greater improvements in academic performance and

behaviors compared to similar students who did not receive the intervention. Therefore,

reducing the amount of time devoted to academic instruction in order to complete 'Brain

Gym' activities twice daily (approximately 20 minutes per day) over the course of the

academic school year did not negatively impact academic performance or student

behaviors.

At the end of the school year (conclusion of the study) students elected to meet

with the researcher to discuss the Brain Gym program. Students requested that 'Brain

Gym' activities continue for the next school year. They reported the 'Brain Gym'

movements were beneficial in school and outside of school, with 81% of the students

reporting that the movements helped them to sleep, maintain focus and concentration,

recall information, solve problems, and improve athletic skills. Students rated specific

114

'Brain Gym' activities as more beneficial including; water, cross-crawl, lazy eights,

hook-ups, brain buttons, energy yawn, calf pump, and double doodles. Teachers also

reported that students elected to use 'Brain Gym' activities during testing and other

stressful times. Based upon this information, it appears that students found the program to

be beneficial.

These findings are supported by studies conducted by Hillman and his colleagues'

extensive review of research in 2008 concluding, reduction of instructional time to

increase the time devoted to movement-based activity does not lead to a decline in

student academic performance. Furthermore, Spaulding's study found that students

participating in 'Brain Gym' activities demonstrated improved classroom behaviors. The

results of these studies, as well as this current study emphasize the value of movement in

promoting academic performance and positive behaviors. The findings of this study may

alleviate educators' concerns regarding potential negative effects of implementing

movement-based programs such 'Brain Gym' in the general education classroom

environment.

According to the results of this study, 'Brain Gym' has significant positive effects

on at-risk students' reading, math, aggression, conduct problems, hyperactivity,

inattention, and learning problems. The design of this study complies with Rtl research

guidelines in IDEA 2004. Therefore, educators may confidently and legally utilize Brian

Gym within the Rtl process to address at-risk students reading, math, externalizing

behaviors, and school problem behaviors.

The findings of this study impact the field of education in numerous areas,

including reading, math, classroom management, school behavior concerns, Rtl, and

115

educational kinesiology. These findings, along with the findings of previous studies and

established theory, imply that movement-based programs such as 'Brain Gym' have the

potential to promote school success for many students. While change in the educational

field is generally a slow process, the findings of this study may help promote positive

change in the educational environment through increased awareness and use of diverse

teaching methods including educational kinesiology programs such as 'Brain Gym' in the

general education classroom setting.

Summary

The purpose of this quantitative experimental study was to examine the effects of

Dennison's 26 'Brain Gym' movements as a tier-one Rtl and a class-wide general

education intervention on primary grade-level students' (at-risk and overall populations)

academic performance and behaviors as measured by the TAKS Reading, TAKS Math,

and BASC-II instruments (Dennison, 2003). In order to accomplish this, the 'Brain Gym'

Three Day Rotation Plan was implemented in experimental group classrooms twice

daily, with teachers reporting implementation approximately 85% of the recommended

time over duration of the eight-month study. According to statistical analysis, there is a

95% probability that no significant pre-existing differences were present between the

control and experimental groups' reading or math performance or behaviors prior to

implementing the 'Brain Gym' intervention. While extraneous variables may have an

impact on these measures, educators can reasonably assume that any significant

differences on these measures at the conclusion of the study were likely due to the effects

of the activities.

116

The results of this study demonstrated that primary grade-level general education

students who received 'Brain Gym' as an intervention experienced greater gains in

academic performance and behaviors compared to similar students who did not receive

the intervention. These gains were statistically significant at the 95% confidence level for

classroom behaviors and tier-one reading, math, aggression, conduct problems,

hyperactivity, inattention, and learning problems. Thus, there is a 95% probability that

when 'Brain Gym' is offered as a primary grade-level classroom intervention, students'

behaviors will significantly improve. Also, there is a 95% probability that students

struggling with reading, math, aggression, conduct problems, hyperactivity, inattention,

and learning problems will experience significant gains in the areas of concern.

Unfortunately, gains were not statistically significant for the general education groups'

academic measures or at-risk groups' Internalizing, Behavior Symptoms, or Adaptive

behavior measures. Within-group variance was much higher than originally estimated

and effect size was small (r2pb — .002 for academic measures, r2

pb = .07 for behavior

measures); resulting in a high probability of making a Type II error (fi = 89% for general

education academic measures and 75% for these at-risk behavior measures). Therefore,

no conclusions may be made with confidence regarding the general education groups'

academic measures or the at-risk groups' Internalizing, Behavior Symptoms, or Adaptive

behavior measures. This information should assist educators in making informed decision

regarding the use of 'Brain Gym' as an academic and behavior intervention within the

primary grade-level general education setting.

117

CHAPTER 5: IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND CONCLUSIONS

Dennison proposes that 'Brain Gym' can effectively meet diverse needs of

students straggling with academic and behavior problems, while having minimal loss of

instructional time (Brain Gym International/Educational Kinesiology Foundation, 2008).

This has important implications because educators report that 54% of American students

in public education are at-risk of failing due to academic and behavior difficulties, and

over 70% of students are performing below federally-defined levels of proficiency (Baker

et al., 2006; Pellegrino, 2007). Federal law now stipulates that empirical scientifically

research-based interventions must be available to all students when early signs of

struggling are observed (Baker et al., 2006). Though the benefits of movement on

cognition, emotions, and behaviors have been well-documented by numerous sound

experimental studies, the research base supporting the efficacy of 'Brain Gym' on student

academic performance and behaviors is limited and inconclusive (Hyatt, 2007; Martin &

Chalmers, 2007).

In order to meet the current needs of the public education system and satisfy

federal research guidelines, a control group experimental design using two-tailed

independent samples t tests (a = .05) was conceived to explore the efficacy of 'Brain

Gym' in meeting students' academic and behaviors needs. The purpose of this

quantitative experimental study was to examine the effects of Dennison's 26 'Brain Gym'

movements as a tier-one Rtl and a class-wide general education intervention on primary

grade-level students' (at-risk as well as overall populations) academic performance and

behaviors measured by the TAKS Reading, TAKS Math, and BASC-II instruments These

results may help educators determine if 'Brain Gym' can provide an essential service as a

118

classroom management and academic intervention for several populations of primary

grade-level students within the general education setting and Rtl framework. In other

words, the findings should help educators determine if 'Brain Gym' may play a viable

role in the quest for educational excellence for all students.

There are several limitations innate in the purpose and design of this study that are

worth noting. This study included only primary grade-level general education students so

applicability of 'Brain Gym' to students with special needs or secondary grade-level

students is unknown. Academic measures included only reading and math. While

performance in reading and math influences student performance in other subject areas,

generalizations of the findings to other subjects should be made with caution. In addition,

this study evaluated only the efficacy of 'Brain Gym'; therefore, the findings of this study

may not be applicable to other movement-based programs.

In this chapter, the implications, recommendations, and conclusions of this study

will be discussed. The implications section will provide a recap of the research problem,

review the findings of this study, and discuss how these findings compare with the results

of related studies. This section will also offer plausible applications of this study.

Limitations associated with this study and recommendations for future research will then

be discussed. A summary of the chapter will be presented along with final conclusions.

Implications

Federal laws now require all students to pass state standardized assessments at a

federally-defined proficiency level by 2014 and educators must provide scientific

research-based interventions in order to meet this requirement (Pellegrino, 2007).

Unfortunately, the number of students struggling academically and behaviorally is

119

growing at an alarming rate and the current educational research base is inadequate to

meet the demand for sound interventions (Glover & DiPerna, 2007). Though Dennison

claims his 'Brain Gym' program is effective in meeting a diverse range of students'

needs, the research base supporting such claims is limited (Hyatt, 2007). Therefore, four

major research questions were developed and the null hypothesis for each question was

tested in order to evaluate the effects of Dennison's 26 'Brain Gym' movements on

general education primary grade-level students' academic performance and behaviors.

The first research question asked, "What is the effect of Dennison's 26 'Brain

Gym' movements as a general education class-wide intervention on primary grade-level

(third through sixth grades) student academic performance as measured by the TAKS

Reading and TAKS Math tests? " In order to answer this question the null hypothesis,

"Dennison's 26 'Brain Gym' movements, as a general education class-wide intervention,

have no significant effect on primary grade-level (third through sixth grades) student

academic performance as measured by the TAKS Reading and TAKS Math tests," was

tested. Academic measures indicated participants who received 'Brain Gym' as an

intervention experienced greater gains in TAKS reading and math test scores than students

who did not receive the intervention. The gains on the TAKS Reading (t(295) = -.90, p =

.37) and TAKS Math (t(295) = -2%,p = .78) tests were not statistically significant at a .05

level for the general education students' group (including both students who are

succeeding and at-risk of failing reading and math) indicating the null hypothesis should

be accepted for these measures. However, retrospective examination of data revealed that

the within-group variability for the general education participants was much higher than

originally predicted and therefore the effect size was small (r2pb = .002), resulting in weak

120

statistical power (7 - B = .11). Thus, the probability of accepting the null hypothesis when

it should have been rejected is 89% for the general education academic measures. These

factors significantly limit interpretations of the findings for this group and no conclusions

may be confidently made regarding the effects of 'Brain Gym' as a classroom

intervention for use with the overall population of general education primary grade-level

students.

The second research question asked, "What is the effect ofDennison 's 26 'Brain

Gym' movements as a general education tier-one intervention within the Rtlprocess on

primary grade-level (third through sixth grades) at-risk student academic performance as

measured by the TAKS Reading and TAKS Math tests? " In order to answer this question

the null hypothesis, "Dennison 's 26 'Brain Gym' movements, as a general education

tier-one intervention within the Rtl process, have no significant effect on primary

grade-level (third through sixth grades) at-risk student academic performance as

measured by the TAKS Reading and TAKS Math tests, " was tested. Academic measures

indicated the at-risk students who received 'Brain Gym' as a tier-one Rtl intervention

experienced statistically significant greater gains on TAKS reading and math test scores

than students who did not receive the intervention. Therefore, the null hypothesis was

rejected and the alternative hypothesis was accepted for at-risk students' reading

0(66) = -2.13,p = .04) and math (7(71) = -2.42, p = .01) measures. Educators can be 95%

confident (i.e., a = .05) that 'Brain Gym' is an effective Rtl intervention for addressing

academic needs of general education primary grade-level students identified as at-risk for

failing reading or math.

121

The third research question asked, "What is the effect ofDennison 's 26 'Brain

Gym' movements as a general education class-wide intervention on primary grade-level

(second through sixth grades) student behaviors as measured by the BASC-II teacher

behavior rating instrument? " In order to answer this question the null hypothesis,

"Dennison 's 26 'Brain Gym' movements, as a general education class-wide intervention,

have no significant effect on primary grade-level (second through sixth grades) student

behaviors as measured by the BASC-II teacher behavior rating instrument, " was tested.

Behavior measures indicated the participants receiving 'Brain Gym' as an intervention

experienced greater improvements in behavior than students who did not receive it. These

gains were statistically significant for all adaptive and maladaptive behavior measures for

the general education group. Based upon the results of this study, the null hypothesis was

rejected and the alternative hypothesis was accepted for the general education students'

maladaptive behaviors (t(46) = -2.71, p = .01) and adaptive behaviors

(/(46) = -2.95, p = .01). This means that educators can be 95% confident (i.e., a = .05)

that 'Brain Gym' is an effective classroom behavior management intervention in

reducing primary grade-level general education students' aggression, conduct problems,

hyperactivity, depression, anxiety, somatization, inattention, learning problems,

atypicality, and withdrawal. Furthermore, educators can be 95% confident that 'Brain

Gym' is an effective classroom behavior intervention for improving primary grade-level

students' adaptive behavior skills.

The fourth research question asked, "What is the effect ofDennison's 26 'Brain

Gym' movements as a general education tier-one intervention within the Rtlprocess on

primary grade-level (second through sixth grades) at-risk student behaviors as measured

by the BASC-II teacher behavior rating instrument? " In order to answer this question the

null hypothesis, "Dennison 's 26 'Brain Gym' movements, as a general education

tier-one intervention within the Rtlprocess, have no significant effect on primary

grade-level (second though sixth grades) at-risk student behaviors as measured by the

BASC-II teacher behavior rating instrument, " was tested. Behavior measures indicated

the participants who received 'Brain Gym' as an intervention experienced greater

improvements in behavior than students who did not receive the intervention. However,

the findings for the at-risk students' behavior measures were mixed. Gains were

statistically significant for the School Problems (/(28) = -2.07, p < .05), and Externalizing

(/(28) = -2.07, p < .05) behavior measures. However, 'Brain Gym' did not appear to

significantly improve behavior for students struggling with Internalizing Behaviors

(7(28) = -1.44,;? = .16), Behavior Symptoms (/(28) = -\.03,p = .31), and Adaptive

Behaviors (/(28) = -1.5 9,/? = . 12) which implies that the null hypothesis should be

accepted for these measures. However, examination of data revealed within-group

variance was much higher than predicted and the effect size was small (r2pb = .07),

yielding insufficient statistical power (i - ft - .25) to adequately guard against making an

error when accepting the null hypothesis. This means that there is a 75% probability of

accepting Ho when it should be rejected. These factors significantly limit interpretations

of the findings for this group. Therefore, no conclusions may be confidently made

regarding the effects of 'Brain Gym' as an Rtl intervention for addressing anxiety,

depression, somatization, withdrawal, atypical, or adaptive behaviors based upon the

findings of this study. Because gains were statistically significant for the at-risk groups'

Externalizing and School Problem behavior measures, the findings imply that the null

hypothesis should be rejected and the alternative hypothesis accepted for students'

identified as at-risk in these areas. Based upon these findings, educators can be 95%

confident (a = .05) that 'Brain Gym' is an effective Rtl intervention for students

struggling with aggression, conduct problems, hyperactivity, inattention, and learning

problems.

The findings of this study are supported by two earlier 'Brain Gym' studies

conducted by Spalding and Trahan and Carpenter (Spalding, 2004; Trahan & Carpenter,

2005). These studies employed similar research designs (quasi-experimental design),

similar samples (general education primary grade-level students), and measurements

(academic and behavior measures). Therefore, where findings of these studies are

confirmed by the findings of this study, confidence may be added to interpretations.

Trahan and Carpenter utilized a quantitative quasi-experimental design to evaluate the

effects of 'Brain Gym' movements on general education primary grade-level students'

academic performance and behaviors. According to Trahan and Carpenter, classes

participating in 'Brain Gym' movements twice daily demonstrated statistically significant

gains on standardized reading assessments and the number of disciplinary office referrals

significantly decreased when compared to classes not participating in the 'Brain Gym'

program. Spaulding conducted a qualitative quasi-experimental study to evaluate the

efficacy of 'Brain Gym' as an Rtl academic and behavior intervention for primary

grade-level at-risk students and found that 'Brain Gym' movements had a positive effect

on at-risk students' academic performance in reading, math, handwriting, classroom

behavior, ability to maintain focus, and physical posture. Spaulding's and Trahan and

Carpenter's studies substantiate the findings of this study. The findings of this study,

along with the findings of these two studies provide persuasive evidence that 'Brain

Gym' is effective as a classroom management strategy and Rtl academic intervention for

at-risk students' reading and math needs. These studies also support the premise that the

limitations in this study that compromised statistical power likely led to confounding the

results, where gains were not statistically significant.

There are several notable limitations regarding the application of the findings of

this study. This scope of this study did not address whether or not educators should use

'Brain Gym' over other movement-based programs. Further, the effects of 'Brain Gym'

on special populations and secondary grade-level students were not evaluated. In

addition, academic performance measures only included students' reading and math

performance. Therefore, conclusions regarding the efficacy of'Brain Gym' in meeting

special education students or secondary grade-level students needs, how the program may

impact student performance in subject areas other than reading and math, and whether

'Brain Gym' programs are more effective than other movement-based programs may not

be drawn from the findings of this study. Further research is needed to answer these

questions.

Recommendations

The findings of this study suggest that 'Brain Gym', when implemented as a

tier-one intervention within the Rtl framework and as a class-wide general education

intervention, has the potential for addressing a diverse range of students' reading, math,

and behavior concerns. Rtl guidelines require educators to use research-based

interventions, but it does not require identifying the most effective intervention.

Therefore, the focus of this study was on the effects of 'Brain Gym' rather than

125

comparing effects of different movement-based programs on student performance.

Understanding how movement-based programs compare and contrast would be valuable

information for educators when selecting movement-based interventions. Further

research comparing the efficacy of 'Brain Gym' and other movement-based interventions

may help guide educators' decision-making process when selecting an educational

kinesthetic program as a general education intervention.

The efficacy of 'Brain Gym' as a general education classroom intervention and

Rtl tier-one intervention for primary grade-level students' academic performance and

behaviors were evaluated in this study. There are few studies evaluating the efficacy of

'Brain Gym' as an intervention with secondary students or with special populations.

Research regarding Dennison's claims about the efficacy of specific 'Brain Gym'

movements in meeting highly specialized students' needs (for example the 'Lazy Eights'

movement for addressing writing) is limited. Studies such as these may have the potential

of increasing the applicability of'Brain Gym' to secondary students, special populations,

and as secondary or tertiary interventions within the Rtl process.

This study indicated that students who received 'Brain Gym' as an intervention

demonstrated greater improvements on all behavior and academic measures compared to

those who did not receive the intervention. However, where these gains were not

statistically significant, the effect size was small and statistical power was weak. In order

to correct this dilemma, the sample size for this study would need to be considerably

larger than organically predicted. Therefore, no conclusions regarding at-risk students

Internalizing, Behavior Symptoms, and Adaptive behaviors or general education

students' academic performance were able to be confidently made since the probability of

126

making an error when rejecting Ho was high. Based on these findings, future studies with

larger sample sizes are warranted to determine the efficacy of 'Brain Gym' regarding

these measures.

Finally, IDEA 2004 and NCLB mandates require that only empirical

research-based interventions be used to meet the needs of all students showing signs of

struggling academically or behaviorally (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2007). The educational research

base is limited so teachers are in a quandary when attempting to locate Rtl interventions.

The design of this study meets IDEA 2004 federal research criteria. Findings indicate that

'Brain Gym' is effective in significantly improving at-risk students reading and math

performance when implemented as a tier-one Rtl intervention. Furthermore, findings

demonstrate that 'Brain Gym' significantly improves classroom behaviors when

implemented as a general education intervention. Therefore, educators should consider

'Brain Gym' as a viable tool to improve primary grade-level students' performance.

In order to support educators' efforts to identify research-based intervention, the

United States Department of Education's Institute of Education Sciences established the

What Works Clearinghouse (WWC). According to WWC (2009), its goal is to provide

educators with a centralized and trusted source of scientific evidence for evidence-based

best practices in education (What Works Clearinghouse, 2009). Educational research may

be submitted to WWC for review and, if stringent research standards are met, the

intervention is then posted on WWC's web-site. 'Brain Gym' is not currently on the

WWC list of research-based interventions so submitting 'Brain Gym' research supporting

the efficacy of the program would have the potential to promote its awareness and

provide validation from a trusted source.

127

Conclusions

The findings of this study suggest that 'Brain Gym' is effective as an intervention

with primary grade-level students for improving Adaptive, Externalizing, Internalizing,

Behavior Symptoms, and School Problem Behaviors, as a tier-one intervention within the

Rtl process for students struggling in math and reading, and with Externalizing and

School Problem behaviors (see Appendixes A, B, C, and D). Because this study concurs

with those of Trahan and Carpenter (2005) and Spalding (2004) assurance is added to

these conclusions. The research design utilized in this study meets IDEA 2004 and NCLB

federal mandates for use of empirical, scientific research-based interventions and

positive, proactive behavior interventions in the public education setting (Fuchs & Fuchs,

2007; Baker et al., 2006). Therefore, educators may use 'Brain Gym' with confidence as

a general education classroom management intervention and as a tier-one Rtl intervention

for struggling students' math, reading, aggression, conduct disorder, hyperactivity,

inattention, and learning problems.

To promote awareness of 'Brain Gym' among educators and provide added

assurance for those considering 'Brain Gym', additional research is needed. Research

evaluating the effects of 'Brain Gym' as a secondary and tertiary intervention within the

Rtl process, as well as evaluating efficacy with secondary grade-level students, is

warranted. Providing scientific 'Brain Gym' research that meets Rtl criteria to the U.S.

Department of Education's What Works Clearinghouse for review would promote

awareness and provide scientific validation through a centralized and trusted source.

REFERENCES

Ayres, A.J. (2005). Sensory integration and the child: Understanding hidden sensory challenges. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.

Baker, J., Kamphaus, R., Home, A., and Winsor, A. (2006). Evidence for population-based perspectives on children's behavioral adjustment and needs for service delivery in schools. School Psychology Review, 35(1), 31-45.

Baker, T. C. (2005). The use of mini-exercise breaks in the classroom management of ADHD-type behaviors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Capella University.

Brain Gym International/Educational Kinesiology Foundation. (2008). About 'Brain Gym'. Ventura, CA. Brain Gym International/Educational Kinesiology Foundation. Retrieved June 2, 2008, from http://www.braingym.org/about

Brain Gym International/Educational Kinesiology Foundation. (2009). Find courses. Retrieved January 22,2009, from http://www.braingym.org/schedule?level=l

Borden, K., and Abbott, B. (2005). Research design and methods (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Caine, G., Nummela-Caine, & R. Crowell, S. (1999). Mindshifts: A brain-based process for restricting restructuring schools and renewing education (2nd ed.). Tucson, AZ: Zephyr.

Corso, M. (1999). Children who desperately want to read, but are not working at grade level: Use movement patterns as "Windows " to discover why. Part III: The frontal midline. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED432751)

Danielson, L., Doolittle, J., & Bradley, R. (2007). Professional development, capacity building, and research needs: Critical issues for response to intervention implementation. School Psychology Review. 36(A), 632-637.

Defur, S. (2002). Educational reform, high-stakes assessment, and students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 4-14.

Dennison, P. E. (1997). What is wrong with me anyway? Children need understanding, not labels. 'Brain Gym' Journal, 11(3), 1-15.

Dennison, P. E. (1981). Switching on: The whole brain answer to Dyslexia. Ventura, Ca: Edu-Kinesthetics.

Dennison, P. E. (2003). What are Edu-K's three dimensions? Retrieved August 3, 2008, from http://www.braingym.org/faq.html

129

Diamond, S. (2001). Educational kinesiology movement and sensory integration: A review of recent relevant neuroscientiflc literature. 'Brain Gym' Journal, 15(1, 2), n.p.

Dustman, R. (1990). Age and physical fitness effects on EEG, ERP's, visual sensitivity, and cognition. Neurobiological Aging, 11, 193-200.

Dwyer, T., Blizzard, L., & Dean, K. (1996). Physical activity and performance in children. Nutrition Review, 54(4), 27-32.

Dwyer, T., Coonan, W.E., Leitch, D.R., Hetzel, B.S., and Baghurst, R.A. (1983). An investigation of the effects of physical activity on the health of primary school students in Australia. International Journal of Epidemiology, 12(3), 308-313.

Ferree, R. M. (2001). 'Brain Gym' RTM, exercise, and cognition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia.

Fuchs, L., & Fuchs, D. (2007). A model for implementing responsiveness to intervention. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(5), 14-20.

Gall, M. D., Gall, J.P., & Borg W. R. (2007). Educational research: An introduction (8th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.

Glover, T. A., & DiPerna, J. C. (2007). Service delivery for response to intervention core components and directions for future research. School Psychology Review, 36(A), 526-540.

Goddard, S. (1996). A teacher's window into the child's mind. Eugene, OR: Fern Ridge.

Guthrie, J. & Springer, M (2004). A nation at risk revisited: Did "wrong" reasoning result in "right" results? At what cost? Peabody Journal of Education, 79(1), 7.

Hailman, D. & Abell, T. (1980). Right hemisphere dominance for attention: The mechanism underlying hemispheric asymmetries in attention. Neurology, 30, 327-330.

Hall, E. (2007). Integration: Helping to get our kids moving and learning. Physical Educator, 64(3), 123-129.

Halla-Poe, D. (2002). A matrix model: For children with atypical behaviors. Coral Springs, Fl: Llumina.

Hannaford, C. (2005). 'Smart Moves': Why learning is not all in your head. Salt Lake City, UT: Great River Books.

Heiman, G. (2003). Basic statistics for the behavior sciences (4th ed.). New York: Houghton-Mifflin.

Hillman, C , Erickson, K., and Kramer, A. (2008). Be smart, exercise your heart: exercise effects on brain and cognition. Science and Society, 9(2), 58-65.

Hyatt, K. J. (2007). Building stronger brains or wishful thinking? Remedial and Special Education, 28(2), 117-125.

Jacob, S. & Hartshorne, T. S. (2003). Ethics and law for school psychologists (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Jordan-Black, J. (2005). The effects of the Primary Movement programme on the academic performance of children attending ordinary primary school. Journal of Research in Special Education Needs, 5 (3), 101.

Kaufman, E., Robinson, E., Belial, K., Akers, C , Haase-Wittier, P., & Martindale, L. (2008). Engaging students with brain based learning. Techniques: Connecting Education and Careers, 83(6), 50-55.

Kamphaus, R. W. & Frick, P. J. (2002). Clinical assessment of child and adolescent personality and behavior (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Kephart, N. (1971). The slow learner in the classroom (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Kohl, F., McLaughlin, M., & Nagle, K. (2006). Alternate achievement standards and assessments: a descriptive investigation of 16 states. Exceptional Children, 73, 107-124.

Kratchwill, T., Hoagwood, K. (2005). Evidence-based parent and family interventions in school psychology: Conceptual and methodological considerations in advancing best practices. School Psychology Quarterly, 20(A), 504-512.

Kronenberger and Meyer (2001).77ie child clinicians' handbook (2nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Lardon, M. and Polich, J. (1996), EEG changes from long-term physical exercise. Biological Psychology, 44,19-30.

Lenth, R. V. (2009). Java Applets for Power and Sample Size [Computer software]. Retrieved October 23, 2009, from http://www.stat.uiowa.edu/~rlenth/Power

Liu, Y., Chen, H., & Yu, L. (2008). Up-regulation of hippocampus' TrkB and synaptotagmin is involved in treadmill exercise-enhanced aversive memory in mice. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 90(1), 81-89.

131

MacGinite, W., MacGintie, R., Maria, K., & Hughes, K. (2007). Gates-MacGinities reading tests, forms S andT(4th ed.). Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside Publishing.

Masgutova, S. (1999). Effect of the EDU-K exercises on the work of the muscles and dynamic and postural reflexes. Freiburg, Germany: Freiburger Kinesiologietage: Institute fur Angewandte Kinesiologie. Kinesiologie Kongress Deutschland.

Martin, L., & Chalmers, G. (2007). The relationship between academic achievement and physical fitness. Physical Educator, 64(4), 214-222.

Meders, A. R. (2000). 'Brain Gym' three-day rotation: For the integration of body and mind. Ventura, Ca: Edu-Kinesthetics.

Mulrine, C , Prater, M, & Jenkins, A. (2008). The active classroom: Supporting students with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder through exercise. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(5), 16-23.

National Association of State Directors of Special Education. (2005). Response to intervention: Policy considerations and implementation. Alexandria, VA. Retieved DATE from http://www.lexile.com/EntrancePageHtml.aspx?!

National Panel of Reading. (2008). Summary. Rockville, MD: Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health. Retrieved August 15, 2008, from http://www.nationalreadingpanel.org/Publications/summary.htm

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2008). Curriculum focal points for mathematics in prekindergarten through eight grades. Reston, VA. Retrieved August 20, 2008, from http://www.nctm.org/standards/content.aspx?id=270

Pearson, Inc. (2009). BASC-II. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Retrieved July, 2009, from http://www.pearsonassessments.com/basc.aspx

Pellegrino, J. (2007). Should NAEP performance standards be used for setting standards for state assessments? (National assessment of educational progress). Phi Delta Kappan, 88, 539-542.

Prasse, D. P. (2006). Legal supports for problem-solving systems. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 7-916.

Raudenbush, S. (2002). Scientifically-based research. U.S. Department of Education Seminar on Scientifically-Based Research. Washington, D.C., 2002. Retrieved June 2, 2008, from http://www.ed.gov/ofiices/OESE/esea/research/

Reynolds, C. R., and Kamphaus, W. R. (2006). Behavior assessment system for children: Teacher rating scale (2nd ed.). Bloomington, MN: Pearson Assessments.

Region VII Educational Service Center. (2009). DMAC Solutions: Overview. Retrieved June 4, 2009, from Region VII Education Service Center web site: http://www.esc7.net

Reinke, W., Lewis-Palmer, T., Merrell, K (2008). The classroom check-up: Class-wide teacher consultation model for increasing praise and decreasing disruptive behaviors. School Psychology Review, 37 (3), 315-332.

Riverside Publishing. (2009a). Gates-MacGinities reading tests, forms S and T. (4th ed.). Retrieved July 6, 2008, from http://www.riverpub.com/products/gmrt/index.html

Riverside Publishing. (2009b). Iowa Test of Basic Skills. Retrieved June 8, 2009, from http://www.riverpub.com/products/itbs/index.html

Shavelson, R. J. & Towne, L. (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Siley, B., & Etnier, J. (2003). The relationship between physical activity and cognition in children: A meta-analysis. Pediatric Exercise Science, 15, 243-256.

Smith, T. E. (2005). IDEA 2004: Another round in the reauthorization process. Remedial and Special Education, 26, 314-320.

Spalding, J. (2004). Discovering the experiences of contralateral movement across the midline by teachers and their students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado.

Sprick, R., Garrison, M., & Howard, L. (1998). CHAMPS: A proactive and positive approach to classroom management. Eugene, OR: Pacific Northwest.

SPSS, Inc. (2007). SPSS 16.0 Brief Guide. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Surburg, P. & Eason, B. (1993). Effects of midline-crossing on reaction time and movement of mentally retarded subjects. Adapted Physical Quarterly, 10, 269-280.

Surburg, P. & Eason, B. (1999). Midline-crossing inhabitation: An indicator of developmental delay. Laterality, 4, 333-343.

Texas Education Agency (2008a). Department of Curriculum. Retrieved August 20, 2008, from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/curriculum/

133

Texas Education Agency (2008b). Highlights of the 2007 accountability ratings. Retrieved July 22, 2008, from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfi-eport/account/2007/highlights.pdf

Texas Education Agency (2008c). Student assessment division. Retrieved June 17, 2009, from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index3 .aspx?id=3534&menu_id3=793

Texas Education Agency (2008d). Student assessment division: Released tests, answer keys, and scoring guides. Retrieved July 20, 2008, from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/student.assessment/resources/release/

Trahan, T., & Carpenter, C. (2005). Project save our learners. Unpublished manuscript.

Tremarche, P., Robinson, E., & Graham L. (2007). Physical education and its effect on primary grade-level testing results. Physical Educator, 64(2), 58-65.

Tyldesley, B. (1989). Muscles nerves and movement kinesiology in daily living. Oxford, England: Blackwell Scientific Publications.

Voss, D. S. (2006). An examination of the effects of 'Brain Gym' RTMon the self-reported symptoms of stress in school-age children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Saybrook Graduate School and Research Center.

U. S. Department of Education. (2008). National Center on Student Progress Monitoring. Retrieved August 10, 2008, from http://www.studentprogress.org/library/articles.asp

VanDeGraff, K. (1984). Human Anatomy. Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown.

Walker, L. Y. (2008). Effects of a classroom-based contralateral movement program on grade 3 students' numeracy and reading scores. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Walden University.

What Works Clearinghouse (2009). Institute of Education Sciences Homepage, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved June 8, 2009, from: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/

Wilhite, K, Braaten, S., Frey, L., & Wilder, L. (2007). Using the behavioral objective sequence in the classroom. Intervention in School and Clinic, 42(4), 212-219.

Witcher, S. H. (2001). Effects of educational kinesiology, previous performance, gender, and socioeconomic status on phonological awareness literacy screening scores of kindergarten students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

134

Yen, W., & Henderson, D. (2002). Professional standards related to using large-scale state assessments in decisions for individual students. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 35, 132-143.

135

APPENDIXES

Appendix A

Key Reading Components

Phonemes

Phonemic Awareness

Fluency

Vocabulary

Comprehension

The knowledge that words are made up of a combination of individual sounds.

The ability to hold on to those sounds, blend them successfully into words, and take them

apart again.

The ability to read text accurately and smoothly.

Reading vocabulary refers to words we recognize or use in print in order to

communicate effectively.

Comprehension is the intentional thinking process that occurs as we read that allows us to understand the meaning of the materials

read.

Appendix B

Key Math Components

Problem Solving Skills

Math Reasoning

Critical Thinking

The ability to utilize numerical operations to find a solution to mathematical related problems.

The application of logical reasoning in procedures and in finding solutions to

mathematical related questions.

The ability to evaluate mathematically-related concepts, come

to a reasonable conclusion, and communicate mathematic concepts to

others.

Appendix C

Behaviors

Adaptive Narrowband Behaviors

Adaptability

Social Skills

Leadership

Functional Communication

Study Skills

The ability to adapt readily to changes in the environment.

Skills needed to interact in a socially acceptable manner with peers and adults.

The skills of children ages 6 - 2 1 years old associated with accomplishing academic,

social, or community goals.

The ability to communicate basic thoughts and feeling in a way others can understand.

The student's ability to complete academic related tasks such as reading, homework, effort on schoolwork, and organization of

academic materials.

Adaptive Broadband Behaviors Scales

Adaptive Skills Includes Adaptability, Social Skills,

Leadership, Activities of Daily Living, Functional Communication, and Study

Skills narrowband scales.

139

Appendix D

Narrowband and Broadband Maladaptive Behaviors

Maladaptive Narrowband Behavior Scales

Hyperactivity

Aggression

Conduct Problems

Anxiety

Depression

Somatization

Atypicality

Withdrawal

The tendency to be overly active, rush through tasks or activities, and act without

thinking.

The tendency to be physically or verbally hostile in a manner that is threatening to

others.

The tendency for children ages 6-21 years old to engage in rule-breaking behaviors.

The tendency to be nervous, fearful, or worried about real or imagined problems.

Excessive feelings of unhappiness, sadness, or stress.

The tendency to be overly sensitive or to complain about relatively minor physical

problems or discomfort.

The tendency to behave in ways that are considered odd or immature.

The tendency to avoid social contact with others.

Learning Problems

Attention Problems

Students, ages 6-21 years old, struggling with learning and performing poorly in

academic tasks.

The tendency to be easily districted and unable to concentrate.

Maladaptive Broadband Behavior Scales

Externalizing Behaviors

Internalizing Problems

Behavior Symptom Index

School Problems

Includes Hyperactivity, Aggression, and Conduct Problems narrowband scales.

Includes Anxiety, Depression, and Somatization narrowband scales.

Includes Atypicality and Withdrawal narrowband scales.

Includes Attention Problems, and Learning Problems narrowband scales.

Appendix E

Three Day Rotation Plan (Meders, 2000)

Day 1

Day 2

Day 3

Morning

Afternoon

Morning

Afternoon

Morning

Afternoon

'PACE'*, Owl, Thinking Caps, Double Doodles

'PACE'*, Belly Breathing, S'PACE' Buttons, Calf Pump, Energizer

'PACE'*, Earth Buttons, Elephant, Footflex

'PACE'*, Lazy 8, Rocker, Arm Activation, Energy Yawn

'PACE'*, Grounder, Balance Buttons, Alphabet 8

'PACE'*, Cross Crawl Sit-ups, Gravity Glider, Neck Rolls, Positive Points

'PACE'*

p

A

C

E

Drink Water.

Brain Buttons.

Cross Crawl

Hook-ups

Appendix F

IRB Application

APPLICATION FOR THE REVIEW OF RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS

This form should be completed by NCU Learners, Mentors, and Staff planning to conduct dissertation or other research involving human subjects. This includes any research in which data from human subjects will be or have been collected. Thus, researchers using secondary data (e.g., survey archives or archived records) must complete this application. Your proposed research may not proceed unless approved by the IRB.

Submission Instructions: E-mail an electomic copy of the completed IRB Application, proposal, and attachments to irb@ncu.edu in the following format:

1. IRB Application should be saved as: Last name of Principal lnvestigator)_IRB_year. Example = Hemandez_IRB_2007. Note: For dissertation research, the Learner is the Principal Investigator.

2. Email subject heading: IRB Application LastName. 3. Attachments: Include all attachments. 4. You may submit these materials via postal or an express mail service. Please use the e-mail instructions

to notify the IRB that the application has been mailed. Submit the original and 2 copies.. 5. DO NOT SUBMIT IN PDF FORMAT OR AS ZIPPED FILES.

Allow at least two weeks and as long as five weeks for the IRB to review your application. Because you may be asked to submit a revised application, submit your materials well In advance of the time that you plan to begin your research. Before research starts the PI must take the Ethics Tutorials and submit certification.

SECTION I: Type of Research (Refer to Attached Description) CUCK ON CHECK BOX

• Category 1: Exempt £<] Category 2: Expedited Review Q Category 3: Full Review

SECTION II: 1. Name of Principal Investigator: Sherri Nussbaum

Phone: I Email: (903)241-2947 I nussbaums@cablelynx.com

2. Responsible Supervising Faculty Mentor: Amy Peterson

Phone: (361) 949-7909

E-mail: apeterson@ncu.edu

3. Program / Major: Exceptional Student Education 5. Contact at Sponsoring Organization: N/A

4. Sponsoring Organization (if applicable: N/A

7. Title of Project (i.e., Dissertation Title or Title Provided to Subjects) Effects o f Brain Gym Interventions on Students' Academic Performance and Behavior

Project Start Date: October 2008

Planned End: March 2009

8. Principle Investigator is (CUCK ON CHECK BOX): ^Graduate Learner • Faculty/Staff • Undergraduate

9. This application is for (PLEASE SELECT FROM LIST BY CLICKING ON TEXT): New Project

10. Age Range of Subjects: 9-13 years old (Fifth and Sixth Grade Students)

11. Estimated # of Subjects/Participants: 320 Students

12. Type of subject: D Adult • Non-student E Minor • College Student • Other (describe):

13. Subjects: [ 3 Normal Volunteers • In-patients • Out-patients Q Pregnant women & fetuses • Prisoners Q Mental disability • DSM diagnosis:

APPLICATION FOR THE REVIEW OF RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS

SECTION III:

DIRECTIONS: Please check the appropriate response for questions 14 to 17. Please be brief and concise In your responses to each of these questions. Failure to respond to any questions will cause significant delays. 14. DYes HNo Will subjects receive payment or extra credit point compensation for participation? If yes,

detail amount, form, and conditions of award. Explanation: N/A

15. HYes DNo Will access to subjects be gained through cooperating institution? If yes, indicate cooperating institution and attach copy of approval letter from that institution, (e.g. Copy of institution's IRB approval, copy of approval letter from school board, etc.)

Explanation: The participating school district administrators agreed to participate in the study and signed consent form on Oct 6,2008 The participating school district's board has verbally agreed to participate in the study and the president of the board will sign the consent form at the upcoming board meeting on October 30,2008.

(see attached participating school districts administrators and board consent forms)

16. DYes ElNo Does this project involve investigator(s) at another institution? If yes, identify investigator(s) and institution and attach copy of agreement to cooperate.

Explanation: N/A

17. DYes ElNo Wilt the subjects be deceived, misled, or have information about the project withheld? If so, identify the information involved, justify the deception, and describe the debriefing plan if there is one.

Explanation: N/A

DIRECTIONS: In a total of no more than four pages, please answer the questions 18-23. Please be brief and concise in your responses to each of these questions. Failure to respond to any questions will cause significant delays.

Research Protocol Description (Please attach surveys and instruments to the IRB Application - separate tiles are acceptable):

| 18. Describe the objectives and significance of the proposed research below.

Brain Gym is a movement-based program designed to promote whole-brain integration in the learning process. The purpose of the proposed study is to examine the efficacy of Brain Gym, and explore practical ways of combining Brain Gym interventions with the realities of today's school environment.

There are several current educational concerns related to utilizing Brain Gym in the public school setting as a school-based intervention.

1) According to NCLB accountability measures, states are required to administer high-stakes tests, to students in 3rd through 8th grades and once in high school, in reading and mathematics. These high-stakes tests carry heavy penalties for students and educators. As a result, educators are turning to research to find instructional strategies to improve student performance. Student performance is affected by both academic skills and classroom behaviors. In order to address these needs, the proposed study will examine the effects of Brain Gym on students' academic performance as well as school behaviors.

According to NCLB and IDEA 2004 educators are now required to use research-based interventions. Since research related to Brain Gym is limited and does not appear to meet IDEA 2004 Response to

1) Intervention (Rtl) standards, utilization of Brain Gym in the Rtl process may be questionable. Therefore, an experimental research design is proposed in order to meet these federal mandates. Furthermore the proposed study will examine the efficacy of Brain Gym as a primary-tier intervention within the Rtl process. Primary-tier interventions are designed to effectively meet the needs of approximately 80% of struggling students. Therefore, if the results of the proposed study indicate that Brain Gym has a positive effect on student performance, then the program may have the potential for making significant educational improvements in the lives of many at-risk students.

The findings of this study should help educators make decisions related to utilizing Brain Gym on a large-scales basis. If the findings of the proposed study indicate that Brain Gym has a positive effect on student academic performance and behaviors, then educators may consider utilization of Brain Gym as a primary-tier intervention in the Rtl process. In summary, the proposed study will examine the efficacy of Brain Gym's 26 educational movements and explore practical ways of combining Brain Gym interventions with the realities of today's school environment.

19. Describe methods for selecting subjects and assuring that their participation is voluntary. Attach a copy of the consent form that will be used. If no consent form will be used, explain the procedures used to ensure that participation is voluntary. Note: This information is particularly important in determining that there is no actual or implied coercion to participate. (See attached information on consent forms)

Selection of Participating School District: The sample will include primary grade-level students who attend a school district located in East Texas. The selection of the school district was based upon convenience and awareness of the school district's standing plans to implement Brain Gym district-wide over the course of the next 3 years.

Selection of Participating Classrooms: Participating grade-level classes will be randomly assigned to the experimental or control group (half of the grade-level classes to each group). The sample will include approximately 320 students. Grade-level groups will receive the same curriculum, activities, and interventions. However, only the experimental group will receive the Brain Gym intervention during the study. These steps should help minimize extraneous variables, such as curriculum differences and pre-existing differences between groups, from influencing the research findings. Once the study is complete the students in the control group will receive Brain Gym as an intervention based upon the district's 3-year plan to implement Brain Gym district-wide.

Informed Consent: For the proposed study, the consent process included seeking approval of the school district's officials including the superintendent, curriculum director, campus principal, and campus assistant principal. The district officials were informed of the nature and purpose of the research. They were also informed that their consent may be withdrawn at any time before or during the study (see copy of district's signed consent form). After the district officials agreed and signed the consent form, an information sheet will be provided to the appropriate teachers and parents. Pending 1RB approval, teachers will receive an information letter that explains basic information about the research, ensures educators that their participation is voluntary, inform potential participants that they may withdraw from participating in the study at any time throughout the study, and explain how their privacy will be protected. A parent information sheet will also be provided for students in classrooms involved in the study. The information sheets will allow educators' and parents* concerns to be appropriately addressed prior to beginning the study. Students in participating classrooms will be informed in writing and orally about the study as well, (see attached informed consent form and information letters)

146

20. Describe the details of the procedures that relate to the subject's participation below. Attach copies of all questionnaires or test instruments.

Teacher Training for the Control Group: Teachers will be provided with 30-minute training sessions over three weeks. First, the basic four Brain Gym movements will be taught and implemented in the classrooms. Once this is accomplished, the additional Brain Gym movements will be taught and implemented in the classrooms. Teachers will be provided with detailed illustrations of the 26 movements, music that will guide the class through the movements, and contact information for the Brain Gym instructor in the event that additional classroom supports are needed. The proposed Brain Gym intervention will be implemented for approximately 12-18 weeks.

Implementation of Intervention: The Brain Gym intervention will require approximately 6 to 8 minutes twice a day (once in the morning and again in the afternoon) to complete. The lesson plan allows students to participate in all the 26 Brain Gym movements. Program integrity will be ensured by variable rate classroom visits from the Brain Gym instructor and researcher. Furthermore, teachers will be asked to keep a daily log recording classroom Brain Gym activities, in order to verify that the intervention is consistently implemented.

Academic Performance Assessments: It is important to note that no assessments will be administered to students for the purposes of this study. The data used to measure student academic performance will be collected through the school district's standardized assessments that are administered district-wide on a routine basis. These assessments include the TAKS released practice tests, Gates-MacGintie Reading Test 4th edition, and Iowa Test of Basic Skills. Data from the standardized assessments (TAKS, GMRT, IOWA, TPRI...) are recorded into TargetTAKS (the school district's computer database). TargetTAKS has the capability of sorting scores by campus, grade-level, classroom, subgroup, and student. For the purposes of this study, the district will provide the researcher with data sorted by grade-level control and experimental groups. This data may also be broken down into subgroups (ethnic and gender). However, identifying information (student name, student birth date, student ID, and teacher's name) will be omitted on the copies provided to the researcher, (see attached TargetTAKS information sheet).

Behavior Rating Assessments: Behavior rating scales (Behavior Assessment Scale for Children, 2nd ed.. Teacher Rating Scale) will be completed by participating teachers. The rating scale takes 15-20 minutes to complete. Participating teachers will be asked to complete rating scales for three to five randomly selected students in their classroom. Protocols will not contain identifying information (student name, birthdates, or teacher name) other than the age of the student (for scoring purpose) and indicate experimental/control group status, (see attached BASC-2, TRSfor children and adolescents forms that will be used in the study)

Data Collected in the Study (see attached samples): Instruments for this study are standardized assessments that are protected by copyrights and state restrictions. Note that copies of the BASC-2, TRS are attached for the purpose of the IRB review only. Information about TargetTAKS, the district's computer data system is also attached. This data system will be used to generate paper copies of student performance on the district's standardized assessments that will be provided to the researcher (no student academic protocols will be provided to the researcher). The district will omit all identifying information from the TargetTAKS reports (teacher name, student name, and birth dates).

21. Describe below the methods that will be used to ensure the confidentiality of all subjects' identities and the stored data (include how data will be handled after research is completed). Confidentiality of data is required.

147

School District Privacy and Confidentiality: The name of the participating school district will be omitted from the researcher's dissertation. Only the geographic area where the district is located and student demographic information will be reported in the study.

Student and Teacher Privacy and Confidentiality-Academic Assessments: No additional academic assessments will be administered to students for the purposes of this study. Data from the standardized assessments are recorded into the school district's TargetTAKS computer database. The TargetTAKS has the capability of sorting scores by campus, grade-level, classroom, subgroup, and student. For the purposes of this study the district will provide the researcher with data sorted by grade-level control and experimental groups. This data may also be broken down into subgroups (ethnic and gender). All identifying information (student name, student birth date, and teacher name) will be omitted prior to release to the researcher. The data will be provided to the researcher in print rather than computer transmittal, to avoid the transfer of sensitive data through media susceptible to viewing by unauthorized individuals. The researcher will store the data in a safe and the papers will be returned to the school district for destruction once they are no longer needed for the proposed study.

Student and Teacher Privacy and Confidentiality: Student School Behaviors: Teachers will be asked to complete rating scales for three to five randomly selected students in their classroom. Protocols will not contain identifying information (student name, birthdates, or teacher name) other than the age of the student (required for scoring purposes) and indicate experimental/control group status.

Researcher s Information Stored in Computer Files: Throughout the dissertation process the research will record all dissertation drafts and on a Lexar encrypted memory stick. The Lexar encrypted memory stick meets HIPPA standards for data storage. The final dissertation paper will be submitted to Nothcentral University for fulfillment of the doctorate studies.

22. Describe below the risks to the subjects and precautions that will be taken to minimize the risks to the subjects. Risk goes beyond physical risk and includes risks to the subject's dignity and self-respect, as well as psychological, emotional, employment, legal, and/or behavioral risk. (Note: There is always minimal risk (s) associated with a project.)

Risks for Teachers: When research occurs in a work setting protecting employee's privacy is important in order to prevent any feelings of work related coercion. Teachers in selected grade levels will be randomly selected as potential control or experimental group participants. Teacher's election to participate or decline from participating in the study will not be communicated to other employees or administrators in the school district, in order to prevent any feelings of cohesion. It is important to note that several teachers in the district will be implementing Brain Gym as part of the district's 3-year plan to implement the program district-wide. Therefore, co-workers not be able to identify teacher participants based upon classroom activities involving Brain Gym.

Risks for Students: Concerns related to protecting student identity will be minimized by omitting identifying information on data provided to the researcher (student name, birth date, student LD#). Potential benefits from the Brain Gym intervention will be delayed for the students in the control group. However, once the study is complete the students in the control group will receive Brain Gym as an intervention based upon the district's 3-year plan to implement Brain Gym district-wide.

23. Describe below the benefits of the project to science and/or society. Also describe benefits to the subject, if | any exist. The IRB must have sufficient information to make a determination that the benefits outweigh the risks [ of the project. !

148

Possible benefits for student and teacher participants: According to the Brain Gym Institute, Brain Gym activities promote integrated whole-brain learning that enhances learning, memory, and emotional/behavior regulation. Brain Gym programs have been implemented in many school districts in this nation, as well as internationally. If Brain Gym Institute's claims are accurate then students participating in this study may experience gains in academic performance and school behaviors. If the intervention is effective, classroom teachers participating in the study will also benefit from improvements in class-wide student performance.

Possible long-term benefits for educators and student: The existing body of research regarding Brain Gym does not appear to meet stringent criteria set forth by NCLB and IDEA 2004. According to NCLB and IDEA 2004, educators are required to utilize research based interventions to meet the needs of struggling students. This process is referred to as Response to Intervention. (RtT). The proposed study will utilize an experimental research design in order to meet these research based criteria. The study will evaluate the efficacy of Brain Gym as a primary-tier intervention in the Rtl process. According to the Rtl model, primary-tier interventions should effectively meet the needs of approximately 80% of struggling/at-risk students. If the results of the proposed study indicate that Brain Gym has a positive effect on student performance, then the program may have the potential for making significant educational improvements in the lives of many struggling/at-risk students.

(See attached teacher, parent, and student consent forms and information letters)

APPLICATION FOR THE REVIEW OF RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS

SECTION IV- INVESTIGATOR ASSURANCES

This protocol review form has been completed and typed. I am familiar with the ethical and legal guidelines and regulations (i.e. The Belmont Report, The Code of Federal Regulations Title 45 Part 46, and NCU Policy) and wilt adhere to them. Should material changes in procedure involving human subjects become advisable, I will submit them to the IRB for review prior to initiating the change. I understand that I am to notify the IRB when the project is completed. Furthermore, if any problems involving human subjects occur, I will immediately notify the IRB. I understand that IRB review must be conducted annually and that continuation of the project beyond one year requires resubmission and review.

Sherri Nussbaum 10/5/08 Amy Peterson / Principal Investigator Date Supervising Faculty Mentor /Date

End of Application

Appendix G

Informed Consent for School District

Informed Consent Form

Effects of Brain Gym on Academic Performance and Behavior

Purpose. The school district and teachers employed by the district have an opportunity to participate in research being conducted for a dissertation at Northcentral University in Prescott Valley, Arizona. The purpose of this study is to examine the academic and behavioral benefits of Brain Gym as a school based intervention. Brain Gym is a movement based intervention that promotes whole-brain integration in order to enhance learning and memory. Brain Gym is used in more than 90 countries and is taught in many public and private schools. Brain Gym was developed by Dr. Paul Dennison and his wife Gail. Dr. Dennison is the founder of the field known as Educational Kinesiology and the Brain Gym Institute. Information about Brain Gym may be found on the web at www.BrainGvm.com.

Participation requirements. Teachers participating in the study will be asked to implement Brain Gym in their classrooms for 12 to 18 weeks. The program includes pre-learning movement-based activities that are implemented once in the morning and again in the afternoon. The pre-learning activities require approximately 5 to 7 minutes to complete. Teachers will also be asked to complete a standardized behavior rating assessment, for 3 to 5 randomly selected students in their classrooms, prior to implementing the study and immediately following the study. The behavior rating scale takes approximately 15 to 20 minutes to complete. Teachers who elect to participate in the study will be provided training prior to implementing the program in the classroom and given on campus supports throughout the course of the study.

Potential Risk /Discomfort. Although there are no known risks in this study, there are time requirements associated with completing the behavior rating scales that may pose added burdens upon the participating teachers. Teachers may withdraw from the study at any time or choose not to complete the behavior rating scales.

Potential Benefit. Potential benefits of participating in this research includes: academic and behavioral benefits for students in participating classrooms. However, no incentives are offered. The results will have scientific interest that may eventually have benefits for meeting NCLB and IDEA 2004 response to

intervention research based criteria, help educators in decision making process related to Brain Gym, and improve students' performance.

Anonymity/Confidentiality. The data collected in this study are confidential. All data are coded such that teacher's name, student's name, students ID, and student's birth date are not associated with them. In addition, the coded data are made available only to the researcher associated with this project.

in

Right to Withdraw. The school district has the right to withdraw from the study at any time without penalty. Furthermore, teachers may decline from participating i the study at any time. Participating teachers' completion of the student behavior rating scales is on a voluntary basis.

We would be happy to answer any question that may arise about the study. Please direct your questions or comments to: Sherri Nussbaum 903-241-2947 nussbaums@cablelvnx.com

Signatures

I have read the above description of the, Effects of Brain Gym Interventions on Students' Academic Performance and Behavior, study and understand the conditions of my participation. My signature indicates that I agree to participate in the experiment.

Participating School District's Superintendent

icipating School District's Curriculum Director

Participating Campus Principal

151

Sherri Nussbaum, Researcher NCU Doctorate Candidate

Appendix H

Informed Consent for Teachers

Effects of 'Brain Gym' on Academic Performance and Behavior

Purpose. The school district and teachers employed by the district have an opportunity to participate in research being conducted for a dissertation at Northcentral University in Prescott Valley, Arizona. The purpose of this study is to examine the academic and behavioral benefits of 'Brain Gym' as a school based intervention. 'Brain Gym' is a movement based intervention that promotes whole-brain integration in order to enhance learning and memory. 'Brain Gym' is used in more than 90 countries and is taught in many public and private schools. 'Brain Gym' was developed by Dr. Paul Dennison and his wife Gail. Dr. Dennison is the founder of the field known as Educational Kinesiology and the Brain Gym Institute. Information about 'Brain Gym' may be found on the web at www.BrainGym.com.

Participation requirements. Teachers participating in the study will be asked to implement 'Brain Gym' in their classrooms for 12 to 18 weeks. The program includes pre-learning movement-based activities that are implemented once in the morning and again in the afternoon. The pre-learning activities require approximately 5 to 7 minutes to complete. Teachers will also be asked to complete a standardized behavior rating assessment, for 3 to 5 randomly selected students in their classrooms, prior to implementing the study and immediately following the study. The behavior rating scale takes approximately 15 to 20 minutes to complete. Teachers who elect to participate in the study will be provided training prior to implementing the program in the classroom and given on campus supports throughout the course of the study.

Potential Risk / Discomfort. Although there are no known risks in this study, there are time requirements associated with completing the behavior rating scales that may pose added burdens upon the participating teachers. Teachers may withdraw from the study at any time or choose not to complete the behavior rating scales.

Potential Benefit. Potential benefits of participating in this research includes: academic and behavioral benefits for students in participating classrooms. However, no incentives are offered. The results will have scientific interest that may eventually have benefits for meeting NCLB and IDEA 2004 response to intervention research based criteria, help educators in decision making process related to 'Brain Gym', and improve students' performance.

Anonymity / Confidentiality. The data collected in this study are confidential. All data are coded such that teacher's name, student's name, student's ID, and student's birth date are not associated with them. In addition, the coded data are made available only to the researcher associated with this project.

153

Right to Withdraw. The school district has the right to withdraw from the study at any time without penalty. Furthermore, teachers may decline from participating in the study at any time. Participating teachers' completion of the student behavior rating scales is on a voluntary basis.

We would be happy to answer any question that may arise about the studj your questions or comments to: Sherri Nussbaum |

Please direct

Signatures

I have read the above description of the study, Effects of 'Brain Gym' Interventions on Students' Academic Performance and Behavior, and understand the conditions of my participation. My signature indicates that I agree to participate in the experiment.

Teacher's Signature:

Researcher's Signature:

Sherri Nussbaum, NCU Doctorate Candidate

nussbaumsw

Appendix I

Information Letter for Parents

Dear Parent,

Our class has been selected to participate in a 12 to 18 week study exploring the effects of'Brain Gym' on student academic performance and school behavior. The 'Brain Gym' activities will be done in the classroom twice a day (once in the morning and again in the afternoon) for 6 to 8 minutes. No personally identifiable information about your child will be included in the study.

'Brain Gym' includes 26 activities that help student improve their concentration, memory, reading, writing, organizing, listening, and physical coordination. 'Brain Gym' was developed by Dr. Paul Dennison and his wife Gail, who did extensive research in the areas of education, brain function, physical movement, optometry, and sensory integration. Dr. Dennison discovered that many students "switch off parts of their brains necessary for complete learning. Often the two brain hemispheres fail to work together and students have trouble focusing and remembering. The solution to this problem is doing movement that gets the two hemispheres communicating with each other.

'Brain Gym' is currently being used in over ninety countries and has been translated into more than fifty languages. You may find out more about 'Brain Gym' on their website at www.braingym.org. If you have any questions or concerns about your child participating in the study please contact me or Sherri Nussbaum.

Thank you,

Your Child's Homeroom Teacher:

'Brain Gym' Contact/Researcher: Sherri Nussbaum

155

Appendix J

Information Letter for Students

Dear Student,

Your class has been selected to participate in an experiment to learn about the effects of 'Brain Gym' on students your age. Over the next few weeks your teacher will start to teach you a few movements that you will do with you class first thing in the morning and once after lunch in your classroom. The movements are easy to do. Other students your age in 90 different countries around to world also use 'Brain Gym' in their schools. The activities are designed to help students improve their concentration, memory, reading, writing, organizing, listening, and physical coordination. The experiment will last about 3 to 4 months. Once the study is over you will be told if 'Brain Gym' actually helped students at you school! Your parents will get a letter telling them about 'Brain Gym'. If you have any questions about 'Brain Gym' you should talk to your teacher and parents so they can help you find the answers.

Thank you for participating in the experiment.