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
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
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
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,
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
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
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
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.
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/
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
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.
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 [email protected] 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
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):
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 [email protected]
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.
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.
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.
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.