Brain Gym on Education

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

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

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

iii

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 Background Statement of the Research Problem Purpose of the Study Theoretical Framework Research Questions Research Hypotheses Nature of the Study Significance of the Study Definition of Terms Summary

1 3 6 7 8 11 11 13 14 15 18

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

19 21 23 24 26 29 33 42 46 52 58 59

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Research Method and Design Participants Materials Operational Definition of Variables Procedures Data Collection, Processing, and Analysis Methodological Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations Ethical Concerns Summary

62 65 66 68 73 77 81 85 88 89

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

91 92 93 94 94

VI

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

97 101 102 103 106 115

CHAPTER 5: IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND CONCLUSIONS... Implications Recommendations Conclusions

117 118 124 127

REFERENCES

128

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

135 137 140 142 143 149 151 154 155

vii

LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Statistics for 2008 TAKS Measures Table 2 Group Statistics for 2009 TAKS Change Score Measures Table 3 Statistics for 2009 TAKS Change Score Measures Table 4 BASC-II Validity Scale Table 5 Statistics for 2008 BASC-II Measures Table 6 Group Statistics for 2009 BASC-II Change Score Measures Table! Statistics 2009 BASC-II Change Score Measures

viii

97 98 100 103 106 107 110

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

IX

74 74 78

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. Hl a : 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. H3 a : Dennison's 26 'Brain Gym' movements, as a general education class-wide intervention, have a significant effect on primary grade-level (second though sixth grades) student behaviors as measured by the BASC-II teacher behavior rating instrument.

13 H4o: Dennison's 26 'Brain Gym' movements, as a general education tier-one intervention within the Rtl process, have no significant effect on primary grade-level (second through sixth grades) at-risk student behaviors as measured by the BASC-II teacher behavior rating instrument. H4a: Dennison's 26 'Brain Gym' movements, as a general education tier-one intervention within the Rtl process, have a significant effect on primary grade-level (second though sixth grades) at-risk student behaviors as measured by the BASC-II teacher behavior rating instrument. Nature of the Study A quantitative experimental design, with random assignment of students to classrooms and participating classrooms to experimental and control groups, was used for this study to explore the effects of 'Brain Gym' movements on primary grade-level students' academic performance and behaviors. The 'Brain Gym' Three Day Rotation Plan was implemented as the independent variable. The dependent variables included reading performance (comprehension, vocabulary, phonemic awareness, phonemes, and fluency), math performance (problem solving skills, math reasoning, and critical thinking), adaptive behaviors (adaptability, social skills, leadership, functional communication, and study skills), and maladaptive behaviors (hyperactivity, aggression, conduct problems, anxiety, depression, somatization, atypicality, withdrawal, learning problems, and attention problems). Dependent variables were measured with the TAKS Reading and Math tests and BASC-II behavior instrument. Independent samples two-tailed / tests were used to determine if students who received the 'Brain Gym' intervention demonstrated significant improvements on the TAKS Reading and Math tests

14 and BASC-II behavior ratings when compared to students who did not receive the intervention. Significance of the Study This study will provide scientific, empirical information about the utility of 'Brain Gym' in public schools. Previous studies of 'Brain Gym' are limited and show conflicting results (Hyatt, 2007). Also, the existing body of 'Brain Gym' studies of student academic performance and behaviors do not meet IDEA 2004 Rtl standards since they did not employ empirical, scientific research-based designs. Therefore, the use of 'Brain Gym' as an intervention in the Rtl process is currently questionable. To satisfy IDEA 2004 Rtl research standards, a control group quantitative experimental research design was selected for this study. The effect of 'Brain Gym' movements as a general education classroom intervention was analyzed to determine if any significant effect occurred to the general education primary grade-level student reading and math performance, or behaviors. The effect of 'Brain Gym' movements as a tier-one intervention on the performance of students at-risk of failing due to reading, math, or behavior concerns was also examined. The results of this study should help educators make informed decisions regarding 'Brain Gym' as a class-wide and tier-one Rtl intervention. Because class-wide and tier-one interventions are implemented in the general education classroom, and tier-one interventions are designed to meet all but 20% of at-risk students' needs, the majority of students should benefit from these interventions. Furthermore, 'Brain Gym' is capable of meeting a wide range of needs, which further increases its potential for helping struggling

15 students (Dennison, 2003). Therefore, the results of this study should indicate if'Brain Gym' may play a significant role in the quest for educational excellence for all students. Definition of Terms Atypicality. Atypicality is the tendency to behave in ways that are considered odd or immature (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2006). 'Brain Gym'. 'Brain Gym' is an educational movement-based program that utilizes 26 movements designed to improve cognitive, behavioral, emotional, and physical performance across diverse populations (Hannaford, 2005). 'Brain Gym' Dimensions. 'Brain Gym' movements are divided into three dimensions associated with the three midlines found in human bodies: laterality, centering, and focus (Dennison, 2003). 'Brain Gym' Three Day Rotation Plan. The Three Day Rotation Plan is a lesson plan that incorporates the use of all 'Brain Gym' movements over a three-day period, in seven-minute, twice-a-day increments (Meders, 2000). Centering Dimension. The centering dimension consists of 'Brain Gym' movements that require crossing the top-bottom midline (Dennison, 2003). Focus Dimension. Focus dimension includes movements that require crossing over the front-back midline (Dennison, 2003). Frontal Midline. The frontal midline is a vertical line separating the front and back sides of the body (Dennison, 2003; Tyldesley, 1989; VanDeGraff, 1984). Laterality Dimension. The laterality dimension includes 'Brain Gym' movements that require crossing over the right-left midline (Dennison, 2003).

16 Midlines. The human body has three midlines: sagittal, transverse, and frontal midlines, where two perceptual fields meet (Dennison, 2003; Tyldesley, 1989; VanDeGraff, 1984). Primary (Tier-one Intervention). Primary intervention is supplementary instruction provided in the general education classroom designed to meet the needs of 80% to 85% of students who are struggling to meet grade-level norms (National Association of State Directors of Special Education, 2005). Response to Intervention (Rtl). Response to intervention is a multi-tiered service delivery model with increasing intensity used in the public school setting to provide early, effective assistance for struggling students (Shavelson & Towne, 2002). Sagittal Midline. The sagittal midline is a vertical line separating right and left sides of the body (Dennison, 2003; Tyldesley, 1989; VanDeGraff, 1984). Secondary (Tier-two Intervention). Secondary intervention entails more intense, small group supplementary instruction provided in the general education setting designed to meet the needs of 15% to 20% of students who continue to struggle to meet grade-level norms after receiving primary interventions (National Association of State Directors of Special Education, 2005). Somatization. Somatization is the tendency to be overly sensitive or to complain about relatively minor physical problems or discomfort. (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2006). Student Adaptive Behaviors. Student adaptive behaviors include activities of daily living, adaptability, functional communication, social skills, and study skills that are measurable and based on national norms (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2006).

17 Student Academic Performance. Student academic performance is a measure of essential knowledge and skills as defined by the state of Texas Education Agency (TEA), covering core subject areas including language arts, reading, writing, social studies, mathematics, and science (Texas Education Agency, 2008b). Student Behaviors. Student behaviors include maladaptive and adaptive behaviors that are measurable and based on national norms (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2006). Student Maladaptive Behaviors. Student maladaptive behaviors include aggression, anxiety, attention problems, atypicality, conduct problems, depression, hyperactivity, learning problems, somatization, and withdrawal that are measurable and based on national norms (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2006). Student Math Academic Performance. Student math academic performance contains three key components of math established by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) to measure students' math, including problem solving, math reasoning, and critical thinking (NCTM, 2008). Student Reading Academic Performance. Student reading academic performance contains five key components of reading established by the National Panel of Reading (NPR) including phonemes, phonemic awareness, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension (National Panel of Reading, 2008). Tertiary (Tier-three Intervention). Tertiary intervention is intense, individualized supplementary instruction provided in the general education setting that is designed to meet the needs of 3% to 6% of at-risk students who continue to struggle after receiving secondary interventions (National Association of State Directors of Special Education, 2005).

18 Transverse Midline. The transverse midline may be visualized as a horizontal line at the waist separating the upper and lower half of the body (Dennison, 2003; Tyldesley, 1989; VanDeGraff, 1984). Summary Educators are struggling to meet the needs of students, comply with numerous mandates, and alleviate national and parental concerns (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2007). Dennison's statements about the potential of the 'Brain Gym' program to meet a diverse range of students' needs, combined with its widespread endorsement suggest that 'Brain Gym' could play a part in answering the nation's educational concerns (Brain Gym Institute, 2008). However, educators must now look to empirical research-based interventions in their quest to foster student excellence within the Rtl framework (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2007). Sound 'Brain Gym' research is limited and the studies that are available give conflicting results regarding the program's efficacy (Hyatt, 2007). More research is needed before teachers can confidently and legally use 'Brain Gym'. Therefore, a control group quantitative experimental research design was used to evaluate the effects of Dennison's 26 'Brain Gym' movements on academic performance and behaviors when implemented as a general education intervention for primary grade-level students. The results of this study should indicate if 'Brain Gym' might be viable in the search for educational excellence in the Rtl process as outlined by IDEA 2004 and NCLB (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2007). These findings could allow educators to make informed decisions about applying of 'Brain Gym' within the general education primary grade-level setting.

19 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effect of 'Brain Gym' movements on primary grade-level student academic performance and behaviors. To assess what is currently known about this subject, an extensive peer-reviewed literature search was conducted. The literature review included topics related to the study such as: federal and state educational assessment/accountability guidelines defining student performance, and developing student schedules that promote success. The review also included specific topics related to the effects of movement include: biological effects of movement, effects of movement on overall student success, the value of specific movements, and studies of 'Brain Gym' programs. This chapter is organized into nine sections. The first section examines federal and state educational mandates and incentives promoting educational reform. Literature revealing how educators define and measure student academic performance and behavior will be explored. This will include examining how educators are attempting to include students with special needs in school improvement and accountability measures. The second section focuses on research investigating the effects of varying the percent of school time devoted to classroom instruction and movement-based activities on student performance. These studies include discussions about how teachers value time in relation to promoting academic performance and classroom management. This research highlights the effects of movement on state assessment performance. The third section is devoted to investigating research regarding the biological effects of movement on cognition, emotions, and behaviors. The biological basis for the findings of these studies was emphasized in these studies. The third section also includes

20 a comparative analysis of different movement-based programs/regimes to determine if studies reveal any difference in efficacy based upon variables such as the type, frequency, intensity, or duration of movements. In addition, the section provides a review of studies investing the differential effects on student performance based upon integrating frequent movement breaks with academic instruction, physical fitness, or increases in physical education class time has differential effects on student performance. The fifth section focuses on the ability to cross midlines in relation to reflex integration, learning, behaviors, and optimal human development. Here, a comprehensive review of research focusing on the three midlines found in humans is presented. Literature noting the relevance of midline movement studies in relationship to 'Brain Gym' is emphasized. Research related to 'Brain Gym' as a school-based intervention is discussed in the sixth and seventh sections. Literature focusing on the effect of 'Brain Gym' on student performance and behavior is presented. Reactions of teachers, parents, and students after implementing 'Brain Gym' as an intervention are also presented. The focus of this section is to explore whether or not implementing 'Brain Gym' programs as an intervention in public schools is realistic. The last section presents a recount of studies highlighting shortcomings of the current body of research related to 'Brain Gym'. A comprehensive literature review questioning the validity of the 'Brain Gym' program will be included. In summary, this chapter should help readers conceptualize what is known about student academic performance and behaviors, the benefits of movement, and the efficacy of'Brain Gym' in promoting academic excellence.

21 Student Academic Performance National and state educational standards and societal norms play a significant role in identifying and defining acceptable academic performance and school behavior. In order for states to comply with NCLB and IDEA 2004 federal mandates, each state must develop and implement academic content standards, assessment measures, and performance standards (Kohl, McLaughlin, & Nagle, 2006). Standards guide curricula and define what should be taught, to whom, how, and when. Assessments measure student mastery of standards and most states utilize state-developed assessments to measure and report student and school performance. Performance standards identify content and mastery level considered to be adequate, as well as ranges for higher and lower levels of performance. This section will provide an overview of research defining student performance from an educational standpoint. Particular attention was given to Texas educational policies since Texas was the demographic area of this study. In order to improve student academic performance, national and state initiatives have been created to facilitate improvements. According to Texas Education Agency (TEA), state initiatives have been implemented to support student reading and math proficiency. The TEA (2008a), reported that their initiatives provide support in the areas of teacher training, identification of research-based instructional and assessment materials, parent training and information, and reading and math academic resources for students. The TEA (2008a) initiatives have identified specific areas considered essential for strengthening student reading and math skills. Essential areas for reading include the use of research-based reading instruction and assessments, providing accelerated reading

instruction for students in first and second grades, and providing parents with information about supporting reading skills at home. Essential areas for math include early identification of splinter skills, instructional intervention, instructional support, and professional development. The TEA also participated in joint research efforts with national reading and math panels (i.e., NPR and NCTM) to identify core components of reading and math performance. Findings of TEA (2008a) and NPR (2008) indicated that student reading performance depends upon five core components: phonemes, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension (see Appendix 1). The TEA (2008a) and NCTM (2008) identified three core components related to student math performance including problem solving skills, math reasoning, and critical thinking (see Appendix 2). Scope and sequence curriculum guidelines of essential knowledge and skills by grade-level were developed by TEA (2008a). According to TEA, these guidelines are referred to as Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS). In order to assess and monitor student performance of TEKS, the state developed Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) tests (TEA, 2008c). According to TEA (2008b), there are five basic subject areas included in the public education curriculum. These include reading, writing, mathematics, science, and social studies. The TAKS measures student knowledge and skills in these five basic subject areas in order to determine student proficiency and school ratings (TEA, 2008c). Reading and math TAKS are administered annually to students in the third through ninth grades. However, writing, science, and social studies TAKS are administered only to

23

specific grade-levels. Scores are calculated electronically by the state and then sent back to school districts. The literature reviewed to this point reveals how educators define and measure student performance. According to the literature, national and state mandates, state assessments, reading and math initiatives, and TEKS (for the state of Texas) have together defined student performance (TEA, 2008c). State assessments (such as the TAKS used in this study) are considered valid and reliable measures of student performance (TEA, 2008c). Inclusion of Students with Special Needs in Performance Measures Mandates in NCLB and IDEA 2004 promote inclusion of students with special needs (e.g., emotional, autism spectrum, learning, mental retardation, other health impairment, and other specified disabilities) in the general education classroom (Kohl, McLaughlin & Nagle, 2006). The NCLB mandates require educators to teach and assess all students, including those with special needs, using current grade placement curriculum objectives (Kohl et al., 2006). Kohl et al. noted that the majority of students with special needs received instruction and assessment below current grade-level placement before these mandates. The mandates hold educators responsible for ensuring that these students meet high expectations. According to Kohl et al., students with academic or behavior concerns often received instruction from certified special education teachers, in classes with a low teacher-to-student ratio and specialized resources and supports. General education classrooms typically contain a higher number of students and fewer individualized resources and supports. As a result, both academic and behavior challenges have

increased dramatically, over the past five years, in the general education classrooms (Kohl et al., 2006). Federal mandates supporting inclusion have stipulated that special education teachers provide inclusion support for students struggling in the general education setting (Kohl et al., 2006). However, even with this added support, the majority of general education teachers report feeling ill-prepared to handle the academic and behavior challenges in the public schools (Kohl et al., 2006). Educators are looking for ways to effectively meet these challenges. The literature in this section emphasizes the urgency for academic and behavior interventions capable of meeting the needs of students with special needs. Student Behaviors Wilhite, Braten, Frey, and Wilder (2007) conducted a teacher survey to identify the most common classroom behavior concerns. The ten classroom behavior concerns most often reported were acting out, aggression, hyperactivity, poor social relations, defiance, immaturity, poor academic achievement, poor attention span, and inadequate self-concept (Wilhite et al., 2007). Teachers emphasized that student behaviors have changed over the past ten years; however, behavior strategies and classroom management interventions remained relatively unchanged since 1972 (Wilhite et al., 2007). According to Wilhite et al., teachers expressed frustration over the ineffectiveness of available techniques and are seeking new ways of managing today's classrooms. Educational laws passed within the decade and higher rates of students diagnosed with behavior disorders are a few of the possible explanations for a new variety and intensity of behavior issues in schools (Wilhite et al., 2007). Other factors, such as

25 changing family norms, have also likely contributed to changes in student behaviors (Wilhite et al., 2007). The majority of mothers now work outside the home and the number of single parent families has increased dramatically in recent years. Financial pressures, limited time, and increased non-parenting responsibilities have left many families exhausted, with little left over to offer to the children at the end of each day. Young children not developmentally mature enough to process violence, inappropriate language, disrespect towards authority, and sexuality are exposed to such behaviors through the media at unprecedented levels. Further, the number of children diagnosed with Autism, Attention Deficit/Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD), Conduct Disorder, and Oppositional Defiant Disorder has increased. Wilhite et al. found these variables have had a significant impact on classroom behaviors. Teachers have difficulty teaching in a disruptive classroom environment and report loss of valuable instruction time addressing student misbehavior (Wilhite et al., 2007). Wilhite et al. emphasized, federal mandates require teachers to address concerns with behavior interventions supported by scientific research. Positive behavior strategies are proactive (rather than reactive), are research-based, and meet Rtl criteria (Wilhite et al., 2007). Positive, proactive strategies approach misbehavior differently than strategies used by educators in the past decade (Sprick, Garrison & Howard, 1998). Instead of using punitive, reactive approaches to behavior management, educators are to respond positively and proactively. Discipline and classroom management have historically focused on teacher needs (e.g., the need for students to listen and remain seated during instruction time) rather than the child's needs (e.g., the students natural needs to communicate, move, participate, ask

for help, and be active) (Sprick et al., 1998). Focusing on student deficits such as hyperactivity, inattentiveness, and aggressive behaviors is no longer an acceptable practice. Educators are to concentrate on student strengths such as being energetic, verbal, and curious. In other words, the approach to classroom management should flow from teaching students to meet personal needs in a socially appropriate manner (Sprick et al., 1998). Dennison (1997) emphasized that 'Brain Gym' allows educators to proactively address behaviors without the need for diagnosing/labeling children and resorting to punitive disciplinary approaches. Kohl et al. (2006) and Wilhite et al. (2007) both observed that the population of students in the general education classroom has changed dramatically, largely due to recent federal mandates and changes in society. Given these changes in the general educational environment, pressure from accountability measures, and mandates requiring research-based interventions be selected to meet students' needs it is no surprise that teachers report feeling ill-prepared. Educators are turning to scientific research in an effort to abide by federal and state mandates, improve student performance, and promote educational excellence for all students. Unfortunately, the scientific research base regarding effective academic and behavior intervention is limited. Consequently, research-based general education interventions need to be identified and developed for educators to manage classroom behavior and provide academic instruction efficiently and effectively. Schedules: Movement versus Instruction In light of the responsibilities placed on teachers coupled with the academic and behavior challenges of today's classroom, developing school schedules has become an

area of contention (Tremarche et al., 2007). Educators strive to find the best balance in the schedule to help children achieve their potential. This section will explore research related to the ongoing conflict between coveted instructional time and non-instructional (movement-based) time during school hours in the challenge to maximize student performance. Hannaford (1995) conducted a quantitative experimental study to compare the benefits of instruction time versus time devoted to movement-based activities for student performance. The study included 500 students and involved an intervention that was one-hour of movement-based activities per day. In order to accomplish this, the experimental group's instruction time was reduced by one hour each day. No changes were made to the control group schedule. Hannaford noted that the control group therefore received one-hour of additional instruction time per day compared to the experimental group. At the conclusion of the study, student academic scores were compared to determine if any significant difference existed between the two groups. Hannaford reported that the academic scores of the experimental group were significantly higher than those of the control group. This research supports the concept that increasing physical activity during the school day improves student academic performance, even though academic instruction was reduced. Tremarche et al. (2007) conducted a mixed method qualitative study to investigate the factors teachers believed most influence student performance on state assessments. Tremarche et al. found instructional time was perceived as the most important variable. The researchers pointed out that teachers rated physical movement as making only a minimal contribution to academic performance. Tremarche et al. remarked that these

28 views have led to less time allotted to physical education, recess, and other physical activities during the school day in the majority of districts nationwide. Tremarche et al. (2007) conducted a follow-up, quasi-experimental quantitative study to explore the effects of reduced time devoted to physical activities during the school day. The researchers reported that many schools are reducing the time students are engaged in physical activities, such as physical education, and increasing time devoted to academic instruction in order improve academic performance. Another topic considered was how movement affects student academic performance. In order to answer this question, the researchers compared English and language arts and math state assessment scores of fourth grade students in two comparable districts that devoted different amounts of time to physical activities. Both districts provided physical education. However, one devoted 28 hours per school year, while the other dedicated 56 hours per school year. According to Tremarche et al.'s (2007) mixed method study, teachers surveyed reported concern that increased time devoted to physical activity and reduced instruction time would result in lower academic performance and state assessment scores. However, when the team completed a quasi-experimental quantitative follow-up study and compared two similar schools' state assessment scores, the school providing more physical activity scored higher on state assessment tests. Tremache et al. emphasized that shifting from instruction time did to physical activity time not result in lower academic scores but rather significantly increased scores. The researchers cautioned educators against reducing the time devoted to physical activity in hopes of increasing academic performance.

In summary, studies conducted by Hall (2007), Tremarche et al. (2007), and Hannaford (1995), support that student performance improved both academically and behaviorally when time devoted to physical activity was increased. These studies emphasize the value of movement to academic performance. This means that educators concerns about time devoted to movement-based activities in lieu of instructional time is unwarranted. Biological Effects of Movement on Cognition and Behavior There are numerous studies have demonstrated that movement produces biological changes in the brains of animals and humans (Lui, Chen, & Yu, 2008; Tremarche, Robinson, & Graham, 2007; Hall, 2007). These researchers used a control group experimental research design to evaluate the biological effects of movement. Findings from these studies indicate the observed changes in the brain had positive effects on cognitive performance, emotional well-being, and behavior. Animal research allows for direct examination of the effects of physical activity on the cells of the brain. There are numerous studies of animals investigating the biological effects of movement. For example, Lui, Chen, and Yu (2008) examined the biological effects of exercise on learning and memory in mice. Lui et al. proposed that cognitive functions involve specific proteins and neurological factors in the hippocampus, the area of the brain which facilitates memory and learning. The findings indicated that the exercise regime (running on a treadmill) did indeed promote an increase in specific proteins and neurological factors when the hippocampus region of the brains of mice was examined. However, Lui et al. emphasized that these findings only imply that exercise improves learning and memory by up-regulating proteins and

neurological hippocampus factors. Only up-regulation of specific proteins and neurological hippocampus factors were measured and not learning and memory, so further research is needed (Lui et al., 2008). Hillman, Erickson, and Krammer (2008), conducted an extensive literature review of human and non-human animal studies exploring cognitive functions, physiology of the brain, and varying amounts of physical activity. According to Hillman et al., non-human experimental research findings document that physical activity promotes neuroplasticity, vascularity, production of synapses, neurons, and up-regulation of several neurotropic factors in the brains of mice. The increased number of blood vessels observed resulted in more nutrition being delivered to the brain. The greater number of synapses and neurons seen was believed to allow for more efficient cognitive processing. Hillman et al. reported that the most consistently reported observations resulting from anatomical research are increases in cell reproduction and survival in the hippocampus. The hippocampus region of the brain is associated with learning and memory functions. Hillman et al. pointed out that these findings have been replicated by numerous peer-reviewed studies. According to Hillman and his colleagues' literature review (2008), multiple experimental studies using neuro-imaging to observe biological functions of the human brain have documented that physical activity has a positive influence on cognition. Hillman et al. reported that functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRJ) reveals that physical activity is positively related to increases in prefrontal and temporal grey matter, as well as anterior white matter volume, which is associated with human cognitive performance. Findings also reveal that physical activity had a larger effect on executive

31 control functions when compared to other cognitive processes (Hilman et al., 2008). Executive control functions include the ability to attend as well as inhibit responses to stimuli. Participants in these studies demonstrated decreases in behavioral conflict (Hilman et al., 2008). The findings of these studies indicate that physical activity has positive effects on cognition as well as behavior in humans. Human research has also incorporated the use of electroencephalograms to explore the relationship between physical activity and cognitive functions. Two such studies using experimental quantitative studies were conducted by Dustman (1990) and Lardon and Polich (1996). According to their results, alpha, beta, and theta spectral bands had greater electro-cortical activity in physically active individuals. These findings are important because spectral frequency has a positive relationship with attentionality, processing speed, and executive control. Hall (2007) conducted research investigating the effect of movement on the production of brain chemistry. He specifically explored the effects of movement on brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF); the chemical required for neurons in the brain to communicate with one another and improves retention, understanding, comprehension, memory, retrieval, and fluency of information. Hall found BDNF production is triggered by movement. Conversely, sitting for more than 20 minutes depleted (Hall, 2007) the production of BDNF. According to Hall (2007), the brain needs oxygen and glucose from nutrients in order to function. Nutrients are supplied through blood flow and movement increases this flow. Hall found that increases in blood oxygen delivery to the brain dramatically enhanced cognitive efficiency. The importance of blood flow to the brain is demonstrated

by the fact that a lack of oxygen-rich blood flow to the brain results in loss of consciousness within seconds. Researchers have found that cognitive efficiency is associated with neuron and cell density in the brain (Hall, 2007). Stress increases the production of Cortisol, a compound known to kill brain cells and also reduce the body's ability to produce new ones (Hall, 2007). However, movement regulates Cortisol levels. Movement has also been found to increases the brain's base-line production of new neuron growth (Hall, 2007). These findings emphasize that movement reduces stress and increase neuron density in humans, which influences emotional regulation, behavior, and cognition. Hall (2007) conducted numerous experimental quantitative studies of the effects of movement on students. In these studies, academic instruction introducing new materials was combined with movement-based activities. Students who participated in these activities demonstrated greater gains in academic performance, reduced stress, and physical fitness when compared to the control group. Hall explained that for learning to occur, new information must be engrained in the brain's neural networks. Hall also cited numerous studies showing that the cerebellum is the area of the brain that processes both movement and learning. Understanding and retaining new information is improved when neural links are connected between previously acquired and new information. Hall reported that that combining known movements with new information improved learning. Movement recruits sensory fibers that carry impulses from muscles to the brain. These impulses engrain information in the neural networks of the brain. Hall explained that when movement is intergraded with exposure to new information, brain activity increases

33

in areas of the brain associated with learning, increasing the engraining process and make learning more concrete (e.g., less easily forgotten). Tremarche, Robinson, and Graham's (2007) report that physical movement has many cognitive, emotional, and behavioral benefits educators should consider. Brain research, the development of neuroscience, and medical technology substantiate that physical activity has positive influences on cognitive activities. Tremarche et al. reported that technologies such as MRI, Positron Emission Tomography (PET), and nuclear (nMRI) have produced major advances in understanding the biological basis of cognitive functioning. Results from MRI, PET, and nMRI scans reveal that teaching new movements to students accesses previously unused parts of the brain. Tremarche et al. emphasized that movement increases brain neurotransmitters, endorphins, neural network development, and facilitates transport of oxygen and nourishment to the brain. Increased neurotransmitters, endorphins, and neural networks promote emotional well-being, behavior regulation, and cognition efficiency. Advances in medical imaging have provided greater understanding of the biological basis of cognitive functions and behaviors. In summary, the body of literature concerning the biological effects of movement demonstrates positive influences on a numerous biological factors associated with cognition and behavior (Lui, 2008, Hall, 2007, Tremarcher et al. 2007). Movement and the Quest for Educational Excellence As shown above, there is significant research supporting the benefits of movement on cognition and behaviors. However, it is important to distinguish between movement-based activities promoting physical fitness (e.g., exercise and sports activities unusually done in physical education classes) and those promoting brief movement

breaks during instruction time (e.g., 'Brain Gym' and 'Smart Moves'). This section will review current research that compares the efficacy of physical education and adding frequent movement breaks with academic instruction in order to determine if a specific method of movement-based activity is more effective in promoting academic performance and positive school behaviors. The relative degree of physical fitness is defined by factors such as body mass index, muscle mass, endurance, and strength. Martin and Chalmers (2007) conducted a correlation study to investigate the relationship between physical fitness and academic performance. The study involved 5,847 students in third through eighth grades, in a Seattle school district. Student's academic performance was measured with the Iowa Test of Basic Skills. The President's Challenge, a White House-sponsored program that encourages all age groups to incorporate activity into their daily lives, was utilized to measure physical fitness. Findings of this study indicated that physical fitness accounted for only 3.6% of variance in academic performance (Martin & Chalmers, 2007). In other words almost all (96.3%) variance in academic performance was not related to students' physical fitness. The researchers noted that physical fitness is promoted through physical education and health classes and physical fitness benefits students by improving overall health and motor skills. However, Martin and Chalmers reported that physical fitness did not appear to significantly influence academic performance. Dwyer, Blizzard, and Dean (1996) conducted a study that summarized the results of two quantitative experiments conducted by Dwyer. The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of exercise on academic performance and behaviors. The team referenced Dwyer's original study (1979) and his two-year follow-up study (1983). These

35 two studies were conducted in South Australia by Dwyer with 519 fifth grade students from seven schools. Three classes from each school were randomly selected and assigned to one of three groups: control group, skill group, or fitness group. The skill and fitness groups received different levels of physical exercise, while the control group's daily school routine was unchanged (Dwyer et al., 1996). Activity for the control group consisted of 30 minutes of physical education three times per week. The two experimental groups received different levels of daily physical activity. The skill group was given 75 minutes of physical activity dispersed in short intervals (10 to 15 minutes) over the course of the school day. However, the fitness group received one 75-minute period of intense physical activity daily in order to raise the heart rate and promote fitness. The initial 1979 study used a 14-week quantitative experiment to investigate the effects on student academic performance and behaviors of providing students with different levels and intervals of physical activity (as described above) throughout the school day (Dwyer et al., 1983). Data were gathered through pretest and posttest measures of academic related behaviors, social behaviors, mathematics performance, and reading performance. The Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behavior (KAB) Child Scale was selected to measure social and academic work behaviors. Academic performance was assessed using the Australian Council of Educational Research (ACER) arithmetic and the GAP Reading Comprehension Test, also developed in Australia. Analysis of covariance was used to process the data. According to Dwyer et al. (1996), the results of the 1979 study indicated that even though instruction time was decreased for both experimental groups by 14%, there were no significant differences between control and

experimental groups academic performance measures over the test period. However, the exercise groups demonstrated significant improvements in classroom behavior when compared to the control group. In 1983 Dwyer's follow-up study using a quantitative experiment to explore the longitudinal effects of the study initiated in 1978. Academic math and reading performance indicators for the 1983 study were measured on state-wide examinations. The KAB Scale was again utilized to measure social and academic work behaviors. Independent sample t tests were used to determine if group means significantly differed. The two-year study results did indicate that both experimental groups scored statistically higher on the state-wide reading and math assessments when compared to the control group. Dwyer et al. (1996) also reported that the skills and fitness groups' behavior scores were significantly higher when compared to the control group. The skill group's academic-related behaviors and social skills had the largest improvements when compared to the and control groups. According to Dwyer et al. (1996), the results of these two studies indicate that dispersing physical activity throughout the day benefits student behaviors more than providing one period of aerobic physical activity per day. Further, reducing academic instruction time by 14% per day in order to devote time during the school day to physical activity did not reduce student academic performance. The researchers concluded that academic gains at the end of the two-year period were likely due to improvements in school related behaviors and social skills. The findings of these two studies (Dwyer, 1979; Dwyer, 1983) shed light on the type of movement-based programs that benefit

students most; namely physical activity dispersed throughout the instructional day (Dwyeretal., 1996). Hall (2007) conducted a quantitative experiment to explore the effects of frequent movement breaks on student academic performance and student behaviors. Results indicated that providing instruction in small intervals with frequent breaks promotes learning and retention. Hall concluded that integrating physical movement with academic instruction improves student academic performance, emotional well-being, and behaviors. Movement breaks help to reduce student stress and decrease disruptive behaviors. Integration, in this context, simply means combining two or more subjects in order to help students with different learning styles (e.g., visual, auditory, and kinesthetic) better understand and retain new information. Hall also reported that requiring students to sit for more than 20 minutes reduces beneficial compounds and nutrients in the brain that are necessary for learning. However, integrating movement with academic instruction that allows for movement (in at least 20-minute intervals) will maintain adequate chemical and nutrient levels so learning can occur. According to Hall, integrating movement with academic instruction is an effective, research-based major teaching intervention. Classroom management skills are included in teacher preparation curriculums (Mulrine et al., 2008). However, the number of office referrals, detentions, assignments to disciplinary units, and out-of-school suspensions has risen over the past few years. According to Mulrine et al., educators are faced with levels and varieties of misbehaviors that have not previously been seen in classrooms. For example, they reported that the

38 number of children diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, and conduct disorder has drastically increased. Mulrine, Prater, and Jenkins (2008) conducted a quantitative experimental study that examined the effects on students' behaviors and academic performance of integrating frequent movement-based breaks during daily lessons and transitions. Mulrine et al. referenced studies that indicate there is a positive influence of movement on spatial relationship concept formation, development of language, emotional well-being, attention, and memory. The researchers identified common classroom misbehaviors and classroom management concerns of teachers. They then examined the effects on students' behaviors, ADHD symptoms, and academic performance of providing frequent structured movement breaks during academic instruction and transitions throughout the school day routine. Pre-intervention and post-intervention data were collected and compared to see if significant differences in behavior and academic performance existed. Mulrine et al. (2008) combined instruction and movement with between-subject transitions and rainy-day activities as a classroom management and teaching strategy. The research intervention included structured movements described as lesson energizers, transition exercises, and rainy-day structure activities. Lesson energizers consisted of 10-minute physical activities combined with math, science, language arts, and social studies instructions. Transition activities were described as routine, structured physical activities which signal to students that one activity is stopping and a new one is starting. An example of a transition activity could include a chant combined with hand clapping and foot stomping patterns telling students that reading lessons are over and it is time to start math lessons. Rainy-day activities provide students with alternative physical

activities when outdoor recess is not feasible. Rainy-day activities may include physically active games and movement-based exercises accompanied by music. This study showed that providing instruction in short intervals improved student learning. However, classroom instruction time generally consisted of lengthy teacher instruction in lecture format that required students to learn a large amount of information and allowed little or no student movement or interaction. Furthermore, Mulrine et al. observed that student motivation is linked to attention, comprehension, and memory. Passive instruction (lecture style) reduced the motivation and natural curiosity needed to enhance learning. The investigators recommended breaking up instruction into short intervals in order maximize student learning. The findings of Mulrine's et al. (2008) experiment indicate that alternating frequent short intervals of structured movement with classroom instruction and transition times throughout the school day has a positive influence on ADHD behaviors, conduct and oppositional behaviors, ability to cope with stress, self-image, social skills, motivation for learning, and overall academic performance. The authors emphasized that physical activity is a valuable teaching strategy that improves student behaviors, motivation to learn, and academic performance. Halla-Poe (2002) utilized the Feldenkrais Method of learning, which relies on sensory-motor techniques in order to improve brain and body integration and promote learning for students with emotional and behavior challenges. Educators incorporating the Feldenkrias Method embed movement into instruction time. This blending has multiple benefits, such as providing an opportunity to learn by engaging multiple senses, promoting whole-brain learning, and enhancing brain and body integration. Halla-Poe

cited several case studies which supported the efficacy of these kinesthetic methods for improving emotional stability and behaviors in students with emotional disabilities and significant disruptive behavior disorders. Ayers (2005) reported that correlation case studies indicated that sensory integration difficulties are often associated with disruptive behaviors. Movement and gross motor play promote whole-brain as well as sensory integration. According to Ayers, providing children with such opportunities stimulates brain wiring, which has a positive effect on sensory integration, behaviors, social skills, and learning. According to Terry Brazelton, M.D., Professor Emeritus of Pediatrics at Harvard University's School of Medicine, Ayers (2005) is one of the leading authorities in the United States on sensory integration. Disruptive behaviors interfere with learning and socialization. The influence of movement on maladaptive behaviors associated with ADHD was studied by Baker (2005). The methodology was a quasi-experimental design with pretest and posttest data collection. The experimental group received mini-exercise breaks throughout the school day and the control group did not receive an intervention. According to Baker, the experimental group had significant behavior improvements compared to the control group. The effects of physical activity on cognition of children and teens ages 4 to 18 were investigated by Siley and Etnier (2003) using a meta-analysis. Their findings indicated that students' cognitive processes have a positive relationship with physical activity. Perceptual skills, intelligence quotient, academic achievement, verbal tests, math tests, and academic readiness were also associated with physical activity. However, Siley and Etnier did not find any relationship between memory and physical activity. Siley and

41 Etnier observed that children aged 4-7 and 11-13 years showed a higher correlation between cognitive processes and physical activities than children 8-10 and 14-18 years. Hillman, Erickson, and Krammer (2008), referencing numerous correlation studies that found either a positive association or no association between physical activity and academic performance in school-aged children, suggested that differences in results were due to the way in which academic performance was measured and/or the longevity of the studies. None of the cited studies found a negative relationship between physical activity and academic performance. Further, Hillman et al. reported that these studies indicated that reducing instructional time required to increase the amount of time devoted to physical activity did not lead to a decline in student academic performance. Although a substantial number of sound experimental studies were cited indicated that physical activity has a positive effect on the brain in general and cognitive functioning in particular Hillman et al. (2008) pointed out that little is known regarding the type, frequency, or intensity of physical activities that are most efficient and most effective in promoting cognition and brain health. To design effective movement-based interventions, more research will be needed regarding the effects of specific movements on brain activity. These studies uniformly noted that dispersing movement activities throughout the day had a positive influence on adaptive and maladaptive behaviors. However, 'Brain Gym' was not used as the intervention and, therefore, generalizations about its efficacy cannot be made based on these reports. In summary, the findings of studies related to instructional time verses time devoted to movement-based activities indicate that combining small intervals of academic instruction and movement breaks improves student behaviors and academic performance.

Midline Movements, Reflex Integration, Learning, and Behaviors Research related to midline movements and reflex integration was reviewed to investigate the effect of promoting integration of primitive reflexes and the ability to cross over midlines with movement-based activities. Midlines are where two perceptual fields meet and the human body has three; right-left, front-back, and top-bottom (Dennison, 2003; Tyldesley, 1989; VanDeGraff, 1984). Reflexes are involuntary responses to stimuli and humans are born with primitive reflexes that disappear with age when development is typical (Goddard, 1996). Several studies have been conducted investigating the inability to cross midlines and unintergraded primitive reflexes to determine if these factors are associated with learning and behavior deficits in humans. Findings of these studies will help to evaluate the value of such activities in improving learning and behavior. Goddard (1996), from the Institute for Neuro-Physiological Psychology, indicated that primitive reflexes present at birth generally intergraded by the age of 15 months. Goddard also reported that postural reflexes develop as primitive reflexes are intergraded. Postural reflexes allow higher motor skills, such as fine muscle coordination, perceptual processing, and ocular motor function to develop. When developmental delays occur, a series of developmental events are stalled and detrimental effects on physical and cognitive processes result. Children with developmental delays have higher rates of academic difficulties compared to children meeting developmental milestones at typical rates; and unfortunately, the prevalence of children entering school with developmental delays is growing (Goddard, 1996).

43

Children having unintergraded reflexes generally appear awkward, are accident prone and lethargic, have rigid posture (Goddard, 1996; Masgutova, 1999). Masgutova, founder of the Institute of Movement Development and Reflex Integration (Poland), stated that children with unintergraded reflexes have difficulty crossing the midlines and often do not know where their body is in s'PACE', have sensory sensitivities, and experience high levels of stress. The presence of primitive reflexes such as asymmetrical tonic neck reflex (ATNR) and tonic labyrinthine reflex (TLR) after one year of age are indicative of developmental delays (Masgutova, 1999). The ATNR reflex is also known as the 'fencing reflex' because of its resemblance to the fencing position (Goddard, 1996). When the face is turned to one side, the arm and leg extend on the side the face is turned to and the arm and leg on the opposite side bend. The TLR reflex is seen when newborns are placed on their backs. The TLR reflex results in the torso and neck arching very stiffly backwards, the legs and feet straighten when coming together and toes point, and the arms bend towards the chest and fists clinch (Masgutova, 1999). Jordan-Black (2005) conducted a quasi-experimental study to evaluate the effects of movement on primitive reflex integration (ATNR and TLR) and academic performance. In order to promote reflex integration an educational kinesiology program, Primary Movement, was implemented as an intervention for two years. The program included basic movements such as crawling, rolling side-over-side, and jumping. There were 683 children, ages three to five, included in the study. Standardized assessments were used to provide base-line data and ensure there were no pre-existing differences between groups and evaluate student academic performance at the end of the study. Academic measures included math, reading, and spelling performance. Data were

44

evaluated to determine if the program had significant effects on reflex integration and academic performance. Results indicated that students who received the movement-based program had significantly greater improvements in academic performance and ATNR reflex integration than those who did not (Jordan-Black, 2005). This is important because the findings of this study revealed that persistence of ATNR and TLR had a high association with academic delays, bone and joint problems, and physical movement difficulties. Over time, unintergraded ATNR and TLR can cause scoliosis and hip socket dislocation (Jordan-Black, 2005). Surburg and Easen (1999) and Woodard and Surburg (1999) at Indiana State University conducted several correlation studies exploring the relationship between an inability to cross midlines and cognitive functioning. Woodard and Surburg (1999) studied different abilities to cross the three midlines and the relationship to cognitive and developmental abilities. Their findings indicated that individuals with learning difficulties, mental retardation, and developmental delays had significantly more difficulty crossing midlines than those who had no delays; they referred to the inability to cross midlines as midline-crossing inhibition (Woodard & Surburg, 1999). Surburg and Eason (1999) initiated another correlation study to examine midline-crossing inhibition. The results of this study mirrored those of Woodard and Surburg's investigation. However, Surburg and Eason also determined that students without learning disabilities could cross midlines easily. Corso (1997) conducted a five-year, longitudinal correlation study to explore the relationship between academic performance and crossing the sagittal, transverse, and frontal midlines. The sample included 28 children struggling with reading and writing in

45 the general education setting. Corso found a statistically significant relationship between the ability to cross midlines and reading and writing performance. Inability to cross the frontal (front-back) midline was associated with letter reversal and confusion over whether to begin reading from the left or right side of the page. Poor organizational skills and difficulty with transitions were related to being unable to cross the transverse (top-bottom) midline. Inability to cross the sagittal (left-right) midline was associated with difficulty processing written and spoken language. In summary, several studies posited that unintergraded primitive reflexes in humans have detrimental effects on physical, cognitive, behavioral, emotional, and sensory processes (Masgutova, 1999; Goddard, 1996; Jordan-Black, 2005). Findings of these studies revealed that there is a high association between unintergraded reflexes, inability to cross the three midlines, deficits in academic performance, and behavior concerns. Researchers have also found, when individuals struggling with midline movements and cognitive skills are given frequent opportunity to participate in movements that cross midlines significant improvements in cognitive, behaviors, and midline movement skills occurred (Surburg & Easen, 1993, 1999; Corso, 1997). Furthermore, the ability to move across each midline was found to be uniquely related to specific academic tasks and behaviors (Corso, 1997). These results suggest that research regarding midline movements may be useful in designing specific interventions to meet the unique academic/behavioral needs of students and has dramatic implications for educational kinesiology as an intervention within the Rtl process.

'Brain Gym' and Student Academic Performance and Behaviors 'Brain Gym' programs are used throughout the United States and overseas to meet teacher and student needs (Hannaford, 2005). 'Brain Gym' was endorsed in 1991 by the National Learning Foundation as one of twelve exemplary educational programs (Baker, 2005). However, educators must now look to empirical research-based interventions in their quest to promote student excellence within the Rtl framework (Fuchs and Fuchs, 2007). This section, explores independent research findings concerning the ability of 'Brain Gym' programs to promote student performance. Paul Dennison introduced 'Brain Gym' during the 1980s and is the founder of the Brain Gym Institute (Brain Gym International/Educational Kinesiology Foundation, 2008). Dennison (2003) described 'Brain Gym' as a set of specific movements that activate the brain and body for learning. Dennison promotes whole-brain and body learning using midline movements. This concept that learning engages the whole mind and body is considered to be one of the core principles of brain-based education (Caine et al., 1999). The ability to physically cross midlines is linked to cognitive processes required for learning (e.g., how humans perceive and respond to the world around them) and 'Brain Gym' movements provide frequent opportunity to cross midlines (Goddard, 1996). As noted earlier, Dennison (2003) defined midlines as the place where two perceptual fields meet. The human body has three midlines sagittal, transverse, and frontal midlines (Dennison, 2003; Tyldesley; 1989; and VanDeGraff, 1984). Midlines may be visualized as vertical lines separating the left and right sides (sagittal), upper and lower half (transverse), and front and back sides (frontal midlines) of the body (Dennison, 2003).

47 There are numerous studies supporting the idea that the ability to crossover a given midline facilitates specific cognitive tasks (Goddard, 1999; Diamond, 1999; Masgutova, 1999; Ayers, 1971). Dennison (2003) identified three dimensions of movements (laterality, centering, and frontal) that correspond to each of the midlines found in the human body. Dennison reported that the laterality dimension, the ability to cross the right-left midline, engages both (right and left) hemispheres of the brain. The ability to cross the right-left midline is linked to informational intelligence and processing spoken and written language (Kephart, 1971; Dennison, 2003). Dennison asserted that the centering dimension, or crossing the top-bottom midline, engages the frontal lobe and hind brain. The ability to cross the top-bottom midline is associated with instinctual behaviors such as fight-or-flight, rational thought, and abstract thinking (Dennison, 2003; Masgutova, 1999). Dennison stated that the focus dimension, or crossing the front-back midline, engages the midbrain. The ability to cross the front-back midline is associated with attention and focus, which are necessary for learning (Hailman & Abell, 1980; Dennison, 2003). In order for humans to cross the three midlines, primitive and postural reflexes must be intergraded (Hannaford, 2005; Masgutova, 1999). According to Masgutova and Hannaford, 'Brain Gym' movements are effective for remediating development delays because the 26 midline movements promote integration of primitive reflexes necessary for higher developmental processes to occur. Therefore, utilizing the three 'Brain Gym' dimension movements engages the whole brain and body so optimal growth, development, and learning may occur.

Ferree (2001) conducted a study to compare the effects of 'Brain Gym', light aerobic activities, and social skills on student academic performance and behavior. Ferree used an experimental design with pretest and posttest measures based on nationally standardized assessments. Students were randomly assigned to a 'Brain Gym' group, a light aerobic group, or a social skills group. The results indicated that both exercise groups had significant improvements over the social skills group. However, Ferree emphasized that the only conclusion that could be drawn from the findings is that physical activities have a positive effect upon student academic performance and behaviors. The effects of 'Brain Gym' lateral movements combined with 'Pre-fit' play activities on numeracy and literacy with third grade students were studied by Walker (2008). The research employed a quantitative quasi-experimental design. The findings indicated that guided physical activities significantly improved primary grade-level students' math and reading performance. However, Walker noted that since the study combined both 'Brain Gym' and 'Pre-fit' play activities for the intervention, further research would be needed to determine if the same results occur when 'Brain Gym' is the sole intervention. Witcher (2001) examined the effects of'Brain Gym', gender, socioeconomic status, and previous performance on kindergarten students' phonological awareness. Witcher's study is significant because it had a sound quantitative experimental design, robust statistical analyses, measurement instruments that were psychometrically valid for measuring the research constructs, appropriate teacher training, and the 'Brain Gym' intervention (six basic movements) was implemented with fidelity. Witcher found that

the 'Brain Gym' movements did not have a significant effect on kindergarten students' phonological awareness. Voss (2006) conducted a control group quasi-experimental study with pretest and posttest measures to evaluate the effects of 'Brain Gym' on 58 sixth grade students' academic achievement and stress. Measures of student stress were gathered using the School Situation Survey, a standardized self-report instrument, and survey reporting teacher observations. Academic performance measures were gathered using the State Testing and Recording (STAR) standardized achievement test. Students in the control group participated in 'Brain Gym' activities twice daily over the two-week examination period. Findings revealed no academic or stress related behavior gains for students participating in 'Brain Gym' activities when compared to the control group. The findings of Voss' (2006) and Witcher's (2001) studies shed doubt on the claims of Dennison regarding the efficacy of the 'Brain Gym' program for improving academic performance for behaviors. According to Dennison (1981) and Hannaford (2005), 'Brain Gym' is effective in meeting the needs of students with academic concerns. Dennison reported that students with learning disabilities in the areas of reading and writing have benefited from 'Brain Gym' interventions. Dennison supported these claims by referencing several case studies of students with identified learning disabilities who have demonstrated significant improvements after receiving 'Brain Gym' interventions (Dennison, 1981). Hannaford (2005) discussed the dominance factor theory and made substantial reference to neuroscience as support for the value of kinesthetic movement in the learning process. The dominance factor is borrowed from Orton-Gillingham's

50

multi-sensory and phonics-based reading programs that are recommended by numerous educators. Hannaford concurred that 'Brain Gym' utilizes whole body integrative movements to promote learning and significantly improves performance for students with learning challenges. Spalding (2004) conducted qualitative quasi-experimental study with teacher interviews and observations. This study used all 26 'Brain Gym' movements as the intervention. The intervention was implemented for eight weeks with 63 six to ten year old students. Participants in the study were general education students identified as demonstrating learning, physical, or behavior concerns and in need of support. Student observations were used to gather data. The findings indicated the majority of students (67%) participating in 'Brain Gym' movements demonstrated no or varied (improvements as well as declines) change in academic performance and behaviors. However, students that were unable to crossover midlines at the beginning of the study and learned to do so during the study demonstrated higher rates of reading, math, handwriting, and behavior gains. These students also displayed greater improvements in behavior and physical posture and awareness of s'PACE'. These findings provide insight into the efficacy of 'Brain Gym' as a primary intervention in the Rtl process since the study included students identified as at-risk of failing. The results of this study indicated that the majority of at-risk students demonstrated no or varied change after receiving 'Brain Gym'; however, academic and behavior improvements were seen for students who were unable to cross midlines and gained the skills to do so during the study. Trahan and Carpenter (2005) conducted a quantitative quasi-experiment using pretest and posttest reading scores based on standardized assessments to evaluate the

51 effect of 'Brain Gym' on student performance. This study had several strengths including: sound 'Brain Gym' training, adequate teacher supports, program implementation according to 'Brain Gym' protocol, and intervention fidelity throughout the study. The results indicated that classes with the 'Brain Gym' intervention demonstrated statistically significant reading gains compared to the control group. The authors also noted that office referrals for misbehavior decreased dramatically in classrooms having the intervention. This study was conducted through a state regional educational service center in Texas and, due to findings, the center planned to promote 'Brain Gym' for the school districts in the region. Results of Trahan and Carpenter's (2005) studies supported 'Brain Gym' as an effective intervention. 'Brain Gym' was implemented within the general education setting across diverse populations in these studies. Therefore, these findings provide insight into the efficacy of 'Brain Gym' as a general education intervention. However, the researchers cautioned that these findings are only supportive and recommended further experimental work. In summary, the literature review resulted in no to little support regarding the effect of 'Brain Gym' on student performance, with the majority of studies finding no significant effect (Spalding, 2004; Voss, 2006; Witcher, 2001). The study indicating that 'Brain Gym' had positive effects was only supportive according the researchers (Trahan & Carpenter, 2005). Several studies combined 'Brain Gym' with other movement-based activities and gains could only be attributed to the positive benefits of physical activity. Based on these findings, the existing body of literature reveals no to weak support of the positive benefits of 'Brain Gym' on student academic performance and behaviors.

'Brain Gym' within the Realities of a School Setting Kratochwill and Hoagwood (2005) wrote of an ongoing tension in education between the relevance of science versus service, and the notions of efficacy versus effectiveness. This debate is widening as Rtl comes on the scene. The educational field needs to address research as an intergraded science focusing on implementation effectiveness (Kratochwill & Hoagwood, 2005). Factors such as methodology and conceptualization as well as portability of the intervention should be considered in designing effective programs. Therefore, evaluating 'Brain Gym' as an intervention within schools using each component described by Kratcohwill and Hoagwood as contributing to intervention efficacy (i.e., methodology, conceptualization, providing service, and portability to the school) will be addressed in this section. Neuro-biological research relying on the latest technology, midline research, and brain-based learning studies have played major roles in developing the methods and concepts of movement-based interventions. Hillman et al. (2008) reviewed multiple studies exploring the biological basis of learning which establish the ability of physical activity to promote cognitive functioning and brain health. Numerous educational kinesiology programs (e.g., 'Brain Gym', 'Smart Moves', 'Primary Moves', and 'Pre-fit') are available to educators. However, Hillman et al. noted that little is known concerning which movements are most effective. Midline research has established a direct relationship between specific midline movements and specific patterns of learning difficulties and behavior concerns (Corso, 1999; Surburg & Eason, 1999; Woodard & Surburg 1999). Therefore, this line of inquiry may shed light on which movements are most appropriate for addressing specific student

53 needs. These studies found that movement-based interventions crossing the three midlines were more effective in addressing the needs of struggling students. 'Brain Gym' is based on movements that focus on crossing-over the midlines frequently (Dennison, 2003). Therefore, 'Brain Gym' may be more effective in promoting student performance than similar programs not focusing on midline movements. Research in the field of brain-based learning integrates neuroscience research and educational techniques in order to approach teaching from a child-centered standpoint. This considers the natural learning processes at various stages of development. According to Caine et al. (1999), brain-based research has 12 major principles. Allowing students to move and engage the motor cortex for more brain oxygenation is one of these principles. Caine et al. (1999) also noted that brain-based education core principles assume learning involves the whole body. In other words, learning includes movement, biochemistry, attention, and nutrition. Brain-based core principles also propose that learning involves focused attention and peripheral perception (Caine et al., 1999). In addition, brain-based education principles state that emotions play a significant role in attention, memory, and meaning. Hannaford (2005) concluded that the 'Brain Gym' program aligns itself with brain-based learning core principles by promoting whole-brain body learning that facilitates balanced emotions, attention and focus, and sensory integration by incorporating movement into classroom instructional time. Bringing an intervention to the school can be challenging. According to Danielson, Doolittle, and Bradley (2007), even effective, scientific research-based interventions fail in the school environment due to lack of support or other extraneous variables. Kaufman et al. (2008) reported that Caine and Caine (1997) spent four years

working in two schools in order to help teachers move from an information delivery to a learner-centered approach with minimal success. At the end of that time, Caine and Caine concluded the impact of an intervention is dependent upon intervention efficacy, fidelity of implementation, support from administration, teacher attitudes, and funding. There is substantial research focusing on promoting school change that recounts these warnings and disappointments. Gaining the support of teachers, students, and parents, teacher training, careful planning for the process of implementation, and sustained support are important elements that link research to practice (Danielson et al., 2007). Therefore, examining factors that may be obstacles to implementing 'Brain Gym' or other movement-based interventions will prove helpful in evaluating intervention efficacy. Teacher attitudes towards movement-based programs must be considered. Tremarche et al. (2007) found that teachers view instructional time as the determining component of student performance. Furthermore, they noted that teachers rate physical activity as contributing only minimally to student academic performance, despite research to the contrary. Baker (2005) pointed out that many teachers view disruptive behaviors and academic difficulties as the result of students' poor attitudes and resort to punitive measures for classroom management. Baker (2005) noted that not only teachers' attitudes but those of students' impact the effectiveness of interventions. According to Baker, students who evaluate an intervention negatively may compromise its integrity by refusing to participate appropriately. For example, students who rely on peer pressure to assert their presumed position of leadership tend to respond to change negatively and often attempt to disrupt

55 the process. Based on this information even research-based educational kinesiology programs designed to improve student academic performance or classroom behavior may meet resistance. Spaulding (2004) conducted a qualitative study exploring teacher and student reactions after 'Brain Gym' was implemented for eight weeks in the general education classroom. The study included 16 teachers and 63 students from 11 public and private schools in Colorado and Minnesota. Teachers initially reported concern about implementing the program. Concerns included loss of instructional time, reactions of students and parents to 'Brain Gym' activities, students acting silly and getting out of control during the activities, teachers feeling overwhelmed by adding 'Brain Gym' as a daily activity, and teachers viewing the program as just another fad pushed by administration. After implementation, teachers participating in the study gave positive responses when asked about the effects of 'Brain Gym' in the classroom. Teachers reported that they felt 'Brain Gym' was an important facet of the curriculum. Teachers reported that the majority of students (54%) demonstrated varied improvements (gains as well as declines), 13% showed no change, and 33% had improvements in academic performance and behaviors. Teachers described students as calmer and better able to maintain appropriate focus when using 'Brian Gym'. Teachers also reported that accidents decreased, classroom behaviors improved, peers become more supportive of each other, and students' self-esteem and leadership skills improved. In addition, teachers reported personal benefits. At the conclusion of the study, teacher and student attitudes regarding 'Brain Gym' were favorable despite their initial reluctance (Spaulding, 2004). Participating

students generally had a positive reaction to 'Brain Gym' and the majority believed the activities were helpful and enjoyable. Students reminded teachers when 'Brain Gym' activities were skipped and asked permission to use the movements during testing times. Parents of children in the study said family members received instruction and explanation about 'Brain Gym'. Only a few of the older boys thought the activities were silly and refused to participate. Spaulding observed that teacher reluctance towards 'Brain Gym' was transformed into praise as the two-month study progressed. Teachers in the study even elected to continue using it as an integral component of the curriculum after the study. The majority of students in the study also elected to continue using the activities. Bringing 'Brain Gym' into schools also means facing practical issues such as the time, expense involved with materials, physical space required, and modification of the intervention for students with special needs (Kratochwill & Hoagwood, 2005). The foundational movements of'Brain Gym', called 'PACE', require about five minutes to complete (Dennison, 1989). The 'Brain Gym' Three Day Rotation Plan is a curriculum that includes all 26 movements and requires approximately 8-10 minutes twice daily to complete (Meders, 2000). Educators who prefer to use 'Brain Gym' as a pre-learning activity engage students in approximately three minutes of specific movements designed to promote the upcoming task (Dennison, 1989). According to Hannaford (2005), one of the unique features of 'Brain Gym' is the diversity of ways educators may implement the program making it appropriate for a variety of circumstances. 'Brain Gym' activities may easily be completed in the classroom environment with minimal expense for materials. Movements may be completed during circle time while students sit or lay on the floor or at their desk while students to stand by their desk

or remain seated in their chair. Each of the movements is adaptable for students with physical disabilities (Hannaford, 2005). There are no required materials other than access to water and a visual aid for completing the 'Alphabet Eights' movement (Dennison, 1989). Training may easily be provided to teachers in a faculty meeting and students gathered in classrooms, physical education classes, or music classes (Trahan & Carpenter, 2005). Furthermore, 'Brain Gym' movements are simple and easy to follow so students transferring in after the training period are able to participate by watching and mimicking the activities. According to the 'Brain Gym' website (2009), licensed instructors across the United States offer the introductory 'Brain Gym' course regularly. The introductory course provides instruction about the three midlines, guidelines about how to complete all 26 movements, and information about how to perform 'Brain Gym' basic balances. The course is usually taught over three days and costs $350 to $400 per person (Brain Gym Institute, 2009), but many school districts contract with a licensed 'Brain Gym' instructor at group rates in order to provide teacher training. In summary, midline studies, neurobiological studies, and brain-based learning research support the methodology and conceptualization 'Brain Gym' (Cores, 1999; Surburg & Eason, 1999; Woodard & Surburg 1999). Studies conducted by Trahan and Carpenter (2005) and Spaulding (2004) explored 'Brain Gym' as a school intervention. The results of these studies indicated that it is feasible to successfully transport 'Brain Gym' as a service to students and teachers in schools. These studies suggest that 'Brain Gym' should be compatible with school environments.

58 Problems with the Research Base Numerous studies have evaluated Dr. Dennison's claims regarding the effectiveness of 'Brain Gym'. This section will provide a critical analysis of the research base related to 'Brain Gym' programs. All research has limitations that must be considered in order to establish grounds for further studies that will eventually provide solid conclusions regarding the ability of 'Brain Gym' programs to promote student performance. Hyatt's (2007) literature review explored the theoretical basis for 'Brain Gym' and critically evaluated previous peer-reviewed studies supporting the program. Hyatt (2007) reported that 'Brain Gym' seeks to rectify neurological deficits resulting from developmental delays and/or disruptions. The program's interventions target neurological re-patterning, cerebral dominance factors, and perceptual-motor training. Neurological re-patterning is taken from the Doman-Delacato theory of development which proposes that learning problems result when children skip motor developmental milestones, such as crawling. Hyatt wrote that the cerebral dominance theory proposes that dyslexia is a result of mixed cerebral dominance and is based on Orton's theories. Hyatt noted that Orton's theory is the basis of Orton-Gillingham multi-sensory and phonics-based programs currently in wide use in schools. Hyatt also reported that the perceptual-motor training theory proposes that learning difficulties are a result of inefficient integration of visual, auditory, and motor skills. According to Hyatt, this theory holds that learning disabilities may be ameliorated by teaching students the underdeveloped perceptual skill. Hyatt emphasized that all three theories have been highly criticized and cautioned against using 'Brain Gym' as an intervention. However,

Hyatt discussed several positive points regarding the theoretical basis of 'Brain Gym', such as the current use of Orton-Gillingham programs. Hyatt (2007) also critically examined research articles published in peer-reviewed journals in favor of 'Brain Gym'. Hyatt indicated that some major areas of concern included inadequate descriptions of teacher training, utilization of assessment instruments that are not psychometricaHy sound and valid for the constructs being measured, failure to adequately describe the specific 'Brain Gym' program used in a study, using an intervention that combines 'Brain Gym' with other programs, and failure to implement the interventions with fidelity. Hyatt's article should help researchers avoid making similar mistakes when developing a research design. Hyatt (2007) cautioned researchers to critically evaluate even peer-reviewed journal articles about 'Brain Gym'. Hyatt pointed out several concerns regarding the efficacy of the 'Brain Gym' program. Hyatt's concerns included controversial findings of previous 'Brain Gym' studies as well as the quality of published 'Brain Gym' research and studies from related fields opposing the theoretical basis of the 'Brain Gym' program. Hyatt concluded that 'Brain Gym' is not an effective educational intervention, warned educators against using the program, and referred to it as a hoax. Thus, there is a need for high-quality research utilizing standardized assessment tools to evaluate the efficacy of the 'Brain Gym' program. Summary 'Brain Gym' is a kinetic-based program designed to improve student academic performance and school behaviors by integrating frequent breaks for movement with academic instruction and transitions throughout the school day (Hannaford, 2005).

Dennison's 26 'Brain Gym' movements are designed to frequently cross over the three midlines of the human body. The ability to cross midlines is associated with specific areas of the brain and particular academic tasks (Dennison, 2003; Hannaford, 2005). Midline research supports Hannaford's conclusions by suggesting a direct relationship between specific midline movements and distinct patterns of learning difficulties and behavior concerns (Corso, 1999; Surburg & Eason, 1999; Woodard & Surburg 1999). However, Hillman et al. (2008) reported there is little known regarding the type, frequency, or duration of movements that are most effective. Further, Kratochwill and Hoagwood (2005) concluded that intervention efficacy depends upon science and service as well as portability of the intervention to the setting. Therefore, guidance on selecting educational kinesiology movements and programs to meet the specific needs of students and teachers within the school environment is limited. The review of literature revealed that movement has a positive influence on student academic performance and behaviors. However, research is inconclusive regarding the efficacy of 'Brain Gym'. Areas of weakness included the combination of 'Brain Gym' with other movement programs, conflicting research findings, lack of replication, and limited studies utilizing sound research designs. Review of literature investigating 'Brain Gym' as a school intervention provided no to weak support for the program's efficacy in addressing student needs (Witcher, 2001; Voss, 2006; Spalding, 2004). Only one study reported favorable findings; however, researchers indicated results only imply a relationship and do not prove cause and effect (Trahan & Carpenter, 2005). The majority of studies combined 'Brain Gym' with other programs, such as social skills training, physical exercise, or other movement-based activities; (Ayers, 2005; Baker,

61 2005; Ferree, 2001; Halla-Poe, 2002; Walker, 2008). The findings of these studies supported that physical activity has positive effects on student performance, but no conclusions could be drawn regarding the efficacy of the 'Brian Gym' program. In each of these nine studies, improvements could only be attributed to movement rather than 'Brain Gym' specifically. Hyatt's (2007) critical evaluation of'Brain Gym' research revealed substantial concern regarding the efficacy of the program. Hyatt emphasized the high level of criticism directed at the three basic theories underlying the 'Brain Gym' program. For example, the Doman-Delacato theory has been rejected by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Neurology (Hyatt, 2007). Hyatt also found that the vast majority of published 'Brain Gym' studies used questionable research methods including: selecting assessment instruments not psychometrically sound and valid for the constructs being measured, lack of specificity about the 'Brain Gym' movements used in a study, and not implementing the interventions faithfully. Hyatt's literature review of 'Brain Gym' research sheds significant doubt on the founding premise of the program as well as existing supportive studies. The review of literature indicates that Dennison's claims regarding 'Brian Gym' program are unsupported by the current body of research and remain largely uninvestigated. Furthermore, the existing body of research does not meet IDEA and NCLB mandates specifying that only scientific research-based interventions may be used to meet the needs of struggling students. After an extensive review of research, the question remains: What is the effect of Dennison's 26 'Brain Gym' movements on student academic performance and behavior?

62 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY The purpose of this quantitative experimental study was to examine the effects of Dennison's 26 'Brain Gym' movements as a tier-one Rtl and a class-wide general education intervention for primary grade-level students' (at-risk as well as overall populations) academic performance and behaviors as measured by the TAKS Reading, TAKS Math, and BASC-II instruments. Dennison proposed that his movement-based program, 'Brain Gym', can effectively meet the needs of diverse students struggling with academic and behavior problems with minimal loss of instruction time (Brain Gym International, 2008). Federal laws now require educators to employ only empirical, scientific, research-based interventions (i.e., experimental research producing observable measurable results) in order to meet the academic and behavior needs of at-risk general education students (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2007). Several sound experimental studies demonstrating the positive effects of physical activity or movement on cognitive functions, emotional well-being, and behavior exist (Hall, 2007; Lui, 2008; Tremarche et al., 2007). However, the current scientific research regarding 'Brain Gym' is limited and their findings are inconclusive (Hyatt, 2007). These difficulties limit 'Brain Gym' use in schools. Another concern is that the research base regarding effective school-based interventions is limited, especially for interventions capable of meeting a diverse range of student needs when implemented on a large-scale, such as the typical general education classroom (Baker et al., 2006). This study was developed due to the demand for interventions able to meet a diverse range of student needs on a large scale, federal laws requiring empirical, scientific research-based Rtl interventions, and the fact that previous related studies did not use an experimental

63 design. Therefore, a quantitative experimental design with random assignment of students to classrooms and classrooms to control and experimental groups was developed to test hypotheses related to four research questions, which are: 1. What is the effect of Dennison's 26 'Brain Gym' movements as a general education class-wide intervention on primary grade-level (third through sixth grades) student academic performance as measured by the TAKS Reading and TAKS Math tests? Hlo: Dennison's 26 'Brain Gym' movements, as a general education class-wide intervention, have no significant effect on primary grade-level (third through sixth grades) student academic performance as measured by the TAKS Reading and TAKS Math tests. Hl a : Dennison's 26 'Brain Gym' movements, as a general education class-wide intervention, have a significant effect on primary grade-level (third through sixth grades) student academic performance as measured by the TAKS Reading and TAKS Math tests. 2. What is the effect of Dennison's 26 'Brain Gym' movements as a general education tier-one intervention within the Rtl process on primary grade-level (third through sixth grades) at-risk student academic performance as measured by the TAKS Reading and TAKS Math tests? H2o: Dennison's 26 'Brain Gym' movements, as a general education tier-one intervention within the Rtl process, have no significant effect on primary grade-level (third through sixth grades) at-risk student academic performance as measured by the TAKS Reading and TAKS Math tests. H2a: Dennison's 26 'Brain Gym' movements, as a general education tier-one intervention within the Rtl process, have a significant effect on primary grade-level (third

through sixth grades) at-risk student academic performance as measured by the TAKS Reading and TAKS Math tests. 3. What is the effect of Dennison's 26 'Brain Gym' movements as a general education class-wide intervention on primary grade-level (second through sixth grades) student behaviors as measured by the BASC-II teacher behavior rating instrument? H3o: Dennison's 26 'Brain Gym' movements, as a general education class-wide intervention, have no significant effect on primary grade-level (second through sixth grades) student behaviors as measured by the BASC-II teacher behavior rating instrument. H3 a : Dennison's 26 'Brain Gym' movements, as a general education class-wide intervention, have a significant effect on primary grade-level (second though sixth grades) student behaviors as measured by the BASC-II teacher behavior rating instrument. 4. What is the effect of Dennison's 26 'Brain Gym' movements as a general education tier-one intervention within the Rtl process on primary grade-level (second through sixth grades) at-risk student behaviors as measured by the BASC-II teacher behavior rating instrument? H40: Dennison's 26 'Brain Gym' movements implemented as a general education tier-one intervention within the Rtl process have no significant effect on primary grade-level (second through sixth grades) at-risk student behavior as measured by the BASC-II teacher behavior rating instrument. H4a: Dennison's 26 'Brain Gym' movements, as a general education tier-one intervention within the Rtl process, have a significant effect on primary grade-level (second though sixth grades) at-risk student behaviors as measured by the BASC-II teacher behavior rating instrument.

65 This chapter will be presented in nine sections. First, research method and design will be discussed. Rationale for selecting specific methods will be provided in this section. Next, the demographics and selection of participants and their placement in groups will be discussed. In the third section, detailed descriptions of the materials utilized will be provided. Operational definitions of independent and dependent variables will be presented in the fourth section. The fifth and sixth sections will give specific details related to the execution of this study, which includes a detailed account of how the independent variable was implemented. This is followed by an explanation of how the dependent variables were measured, processed, and analyzed. Methodological assumptions and limitations related to the research design, as well as delimitations that arose during the study will be discussed in the seventh section. The eighth section will explain ethical concerns associated with this study and how they were addressed. A summary of major points will close the chapter. Research Method and Design A quantitative experimental design with random assignment of students to classrooms, and participating classrooms to control and experimental groups was used to evaluate the effects of 'Brain Gym' on the academic performance and behaviors of public school general education primary grade-level students (at-risk and overall populations), as defined by the TAKS Reading, TAKS Math, and BASC-II. Posttest data was collected following eight months of intervention using the 'Brain Gym' Three Day Rotation Plan (Meders, 2000). Change scores were calculated, and data were analyzed using two-tailed independent samples t test with a 95% confidence level. This approach was chosen for five major reasons. First, IDEA 2004 and NCLB require that interventions used to address

struggling students needs m public education be empirical research-based (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2007). Quantitative experimental design utilizing robust statistics meets Rtl criteria, by providing observable and measurable data using. Secondly, a control group quantitative experimental design is one of the most rigorous methods of research because it establishes the intervention as the cause of the observed outcome, while correlation and causal-comparative studies establish only that a relationship exists (Bordens & Abbott, 2005). Third, decisions about the design of this study were based on minimizing and balancing the probability of Type I and Type II errors, such as setting alpha at .05, selecting two-tailed rather than one-tailed t test, and ensuring the sample size for each measure was above 30 (Heiman, 2003). Fourth, the use of change scores minimized any pre-intervention differences between control and experimental groups. Fifth, the majority of previous studies regarding the effects of 'Brain Gym', midline movement, and other movement-based interventions on cognition, emotion, and behavior have selected quasi-experimental or experimental designs. Therefore, using a similar design for this study will help add substance when evaluating the efficacy of 'Brain Gym' on academic performance and behaviors. Participants The participants included 364 primary grade-level (second through sixth grades) students who attend a rural school district in East Texas. The district was chosen for convenience. Students in grades 7-12 were not included in the sample due to their frequent schedule changes. Consistently implementing the research intervention in these grades would likely not be possible.

The participating school district for this study was located in East Texas on the outskirts of a mid-sized city. Recent demographic information from the participating school district indicated the district had approximately 2,865 students, of which 52% were males. The student ethnicity distribution was 72% White, 19% Black, 8% Hispanic, 0.7% Asian, and 0.5% American Indian/Alaskan. The socioeconomic makeup of the student population qualified the district for Title One funds. Approximately 13.6% of the students who attend the district have individual educational plans. Students in the participating school district were randomly assigned to appropriate grade-level classes before the first day of school by the district office and classrooms were randomly assigned to control and experimental groups in October 2008. The size of the sample is related to the amount of statistical power and, in theory, a sample of 30 is required for adequate power when robust statistical analysis is used (Heiman, 2003). Projective power analysis, based on calculations developed by Lenth (2009), indicated that a sample size of 126 participants would yield 80% power. The study included 364 primary grade-level students. The class-wide academic measures included 297 participants since 67 subjects were dropped from the study due to transfers in and out of the district, taking an alternative form of the TAKS, or absences during the testing periods. The number of participants identified as at-risk in reading and math included only a small portion of the total number of subjects in this study. Therefore, Rtl academic intervention measures included 68 at-risk students for reading and 73 for math measures. Each BASC-II rating takes approximately 30 minutes to complete and because teachers' time is limited they completed behavior ratings for only three students. As a result, the actual sample size for classroom behavior measures was 48 students, while Rtl behavior

68 intervention measures included 30 at-risk students. Therefore, all behavior and academic measures included more than 30 subjects. Materials Materials used in this study will be described in this section. Materials included TAKS Reading tests, TAKS Math tests, BASC-II teacher rating form, The 'Brain Gym' Three Day Rotation Plan ('Brain Gym' Curriculum) curriculum and illustrated posters, water bottles, the Data Management and Communication {DMAC) database, and Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS) software. This section will include descriptions of the TAKS Reading, TAKS Math, and BASC-II instruments used to provide measures of the dependent variables for this study. The independent variable, the 'Brain Gym' Curriculum, will also be discussed. Materials required for implementing the curriculum will also be reviewed. Finally, DMAC and SPSS, used to gather and analyze the data for this study, will be described. The dependent variables for reading and math performance were measured using the TAKS Reading and TAKS Math tests. The Texas Education Agency/Student Assessment Division manages and oversees developing, administering, scoring and analyzing the statewide TAKS assessment test (TEA, 2008c). The TAKS test is a standardized instrument used to assess grade-level essential knowledge and skills in the core academic areas of reading, language arts, writing, social studies, math, and science (TEA, 2008b). Science, writing, and social studies are assessed only in specific grade-levels. The TAKS reading and math tests are administered to students in grades 3-12 annually late in the spring semester. The TAKS tests are administered under standardized guidelines throughout Texas and grade-level students receive identical

69 assessments and multiple choice response forms (TEA, 2008b). Based on this information, the TAKS tests have sound reliability. State standardized tests, such as TAKS, are considered high stakes tests since school, teacher, and student accountability measures depend heavily on the results (TEA, 2008c). For some grade-levels, promotion is tied to the scores. The state therefore allows students three attempts to meet the minimum results. The first administration of the TAKS Reading and TAKS Math tests were used for this study. The TAKS Reading and TAKS Math tests are designed to assess all areas of knowledge and essential skills required for students to be proficient in reading and mathematics 'on grade-level', as defined by Texas Education Agency (Texas Education Agency, 2008b). The TAKS Reading test measures key reading components as defined by the National Panel of Reading (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2008; see Appendix A for definitions). The TAKS Math test is aligned with three key math components defined by National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2008; see Appendix B for definitions). The TAKS tests are state-normed instruments administered under standardized guidelines (Texas Education Agency, 2008b). Based on this information, the TAKS Reading and TAKS Math tests are valid instruments for providing measures of students' reading and math academic performance, have sound psychometric properties, and are reliable and valid instruments for providing academic measures of interest in this study. Dependent variables for adaptive and maladaptive behaviors were measured using the Behavior Assessment Scale for Children, Second Edition, Teacher Rating Form (BASC-II, TRF) as the teacher rating instrument. Teacher time is limited and the BASC-II

70 requires approximately 20 minutes per student to complete, so only a small portion of the research sample was included in the behavior ratings (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2006). Teachers participating in the study completed the BASC-II for three randomly-selected students, giving a sample size of 48 students. This sample thereby met the theoretical minimum size needed for sufficient power (Heiman, 2003). Teacher ratings were completed in October 2008 and May 2009. The BASC-II, Teacher Rating Scale {BASC-II, TRS) is a nationally-normed and standardized instrument (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2006). Reliability for the BASC-II, TRS is as follows: internal consistency reliability = .80, test re-test reliability = .89, and inter-rater reliability = .71 (Kamphaus & Frick, 2002). Validity of the BASC-II, TRS instrument is good, based on very high correlations with other teacher rating scales (Kamphaus & Frick, 2002). The instrument incorporates a Likert rating scale to measure behaviors (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2006) and has sound psychometric properties (Kamphaus & Frick, 2002). The BASC-II, TRS is an omnibus rating scale designed to measure student behaviors (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2006), which are measured across 15 narrowband scales: Aggression, Anxiety, Attention Problems, Atypicality, Conduct Problems, Depression, Hyperactivity, Somatization, Withdrawal, Activities of Daily Living, Adaptability, Functional Communication, Leadership, Social Skills, and Study Skills. The narrowband scales are grouped into six broadband scales: Externalizing Problems, Internalizing Problems, Behavior Symptom Index, Learning Problems Adaptive Skills, and Study Skills. These scales are then categorized as Maladaptive or Adaptive Behaviors (see Appendixes C and D).

71 The BASC-II, TRS contains three validity scales including Fake Bad, Response Pattern, and Consistency (Kamphaus & Frick, 2002). The validity scales measure, respectively, negative bias, stereotypical or unusual response patterns, and inconsistency of responses to the same type questions. Validity scales provide measures indicating if teacher ratings are likely to be a true representation of student behaviors (Kamphaus & Frick, 2002). T-scores for each narrowband and broadband scale were compared, and the coefficient of similarity was calculated between the raters' scores to ensure inter-rater reliability. The 'Brain Gym' Curriculum was selected for the study because it incorporates all 26 'Brain Gym' movements (Meders, 2000). The program was accepted and endorsed by the Brain Gym Institute Board (Brain Gym International, 2008) and is considered valid for evaluating the effects 'Brain Gym' movements. The program includes a curriculum and illustrated posters of the movements. Providing classrooms with the curriculum and illustrated posters promotes integrity of the intervention and therefore reliability for the study. Other materials associated with the 'Brain Gym' Curriculum included water bottles and 'Alphabet Eights' posters for students. Water bottles with the 'Brain Gym' logo were supplied for participants. The 'Alphabet Eights' posters were supplied to a small portion of the research classrooms. As all subjects did not receive a poster, the movement was not implemented consistently. However, 'Lazy Eights' movement was used to replace 'Alphabet Eights' since these 'Brain Gym' movements are similar and cross the midlines (see Methodological Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations in

this chapter for details). Teachers were also given calendars to track the consistency of implementation over time and classroom participation in the intervention. Software applications included the BASC-II Assist Plus non-scannable software and Scoring Assistant and SPSS Student Version 16.0 (SPSS 16.0) were used. The BASC-II TRF may be scored by hand, non-scannable software, or scannable software (Pearson Inc., 2009). The non-scannable software requires computer entry, but calculates standard scores and interprets results. The scannable version of the program is more than twice the cost of the non-scannable, but eliminates computer entry error. The BASC-II Assist Plus non-scannable software was selected for this study and allows for data to be entered twice as a precaution against entry errors (Pearson, Inc., 2009). In order to ensure reliability, this option was used. The SPSS is the most widely use desktop statistics program in the world (SPSS, Inc., 2007). Data analysis tools include spreadsheet applications, statistical procedures, and graphics. The program is capable of performing t tests, ANOVA, and crosstabulations. The SPSS 16.0 was selected for data analysis owing to its wide use, excellent reputation, ability to perform the statistical procedures used in this study, relatively low cost, and recency of the version. The DMAC database retrieved TAKS reading and math scores. The program is a web-based software suite designed to help educators develop and manage curriculum and assessment data in Texas schools (Region VII Educational Service Center, 2009) and is available to educators through state-supported regional educational service centers located across Texas. The TAKS standardized scores were retrieved from the DMAC database housed at the Region VII Educational Service Center, Kilgore.

73

Operational Definition of Variables Definitions for variables used in this study are given in this section. The study contained one independent variable and four dependent variables. The independent variable was the 'Brain Gym' intervention implemented in the experimental group. Dependent variables included academic reading performance, academic math performance, adaptive behaviors, and maladaptive behaviors. Dependent variables were measured using standardized instruments including the TAKS Reading, TAKS Math, and BASC-II, TRS. Figure 1 presents the variables, their operational definitions, and the range of possible values assignable to each of the constructs for the study. Figure 2 presents the relationship between the independent and dependent variables in a conceptual construct model.

Variables

Operational Definitions

List of Possible Values

Student Academic Reading Performance

Dependent Variable (Yi)

Possible values of 0-2800 for TAKS

Student Academic Math Performance

Dependent Variable (Y2)

Possible values of 0-2800 for TAKS

Student Adaptive School Behaviors

Dependent Variable (Y3)

Possible values of 0-120

Student Maladaptive School Behaviors

Dependent Variable (Y4)

Possible values of 0-120

Figure 1. Definition of variables.

Yl Reading Performance (comprehension, fluency, vocabulary, phonemes, phonemic awareness)

X

Y2 Math Performance (problem solv ing, math reasoning, critical thinking )

Brain Gym Three DayRotation Plan

Y3 Student Adaptive Behaviors (adaptability, social skills, leadership, functional communication, study skills)

Y4 Student Maladaptive Behaviors (hyperactivity, aggression, conduct problems, anxiety, depression, somatization, atypicality, withdrawal, learning problems, attention problems)

Figure 2. Conceptual model for the control group quantitative experimental design.

75

'Brain Gym'. The independent variable (X) for this study had the possible values of implemented or not implemented. The 'Brain Gym' program utilized in this study was the 'Brain Gym' Three Day Rotation Plan (Meders, 2000). The 'Brain Gym' Curriculum is designed for implementation in classrooms and can be found on the Brain Gym Institute web site (see Appendix E) and includes six lesson plans that are done morning and afternoon for three days on a rotation. Each lesson requires approximately eight minutes per session to complete. The lesson plan includes illustrations and instruction for completing each of the 26 'Brain Gym' movements. Student Academic Reading Performance. Dependent Variable (Yi), had possible values of 0-2800 for TAKS Reading standard scores and these were used to measure reading academic performance for students included in the study. As noted above, since TAKS reading tests assess all five key components of reading established by the NPR to measure student reading proficiency the scores were considered a valid measure of student academic reading performance (NPR, 2008; see Appendix A for definitions). The TAKS Reading test is available in three alternate forms allowing students to have three opportunities to meet the minimum standards required for grade promotion (TEA, 2008c). The TAKS tests are administered each April and May under standardized conditions which vary according to grade-level. Students who receive a score of less than 2100 are given two additional opportunities to meet minimum standards. All TAKS scores used in this study were from first administration results. Student Academic Math Performance. Dependent Variable (Y2), had possible values of 0-2800 for TAKS Math standard scores. The TAKS Math tests were used to measure math academic performance for students included in the study because they are

based on the three key components of math established by the NCTM to measure students' math proficiency (NCTM, 2008; see Appendix B for definitions). Therefore, the TAKS Math test is considered to be a valid measure of student math performance. The test is available in three alternate forms allowing students to have three opportunities to meet the minimum standard score (2100) required for grade promotion (TEA, 2008c). Math scores used in this study are from first administration results. Student Adaptive Behavior. Dependent Variable (Y3) had possible values of 0-120. The BASC-II, TRS, a standardized nationally-normed instrument, measured student adaptive behaviors. This instrument provides ratio level data in the form of T-scores and percentiles. T-scores have a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. Adaptive behaviors are categorized as: Daily Living Skills, Adaptability, Functional Communication, Social Skills, Leadership, and Study Skills (see Appendix C). Scores for adaptive behaviors below 40 are considered to be At-risk, and below 30 are Clinically Significant (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2006). Student Maladaptive Behavior. Dependent Variable (Y4), had the possible values of 0-120. The BASC-II, TRS was used to measure maladaptive student behaviors. This instrument provides ratio level data as T-scores and percentiles. T-scores have a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. Maladaptive behaviors are: Aggression, Anxiety, Attention Problems, Atypicality, Conduct Problems, Depression, Hyperactivity, Learning Problems, Somatization, and Withdrawal (see Appendix D for descriptions). Scores for maladaptive behaviors above 60 are considered to be At-risk, and above 70 are Clinically Significant (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2006).

77

Procedures This section will present the procedures carried out in order to conduct the research. The procedures will be presented in the chronological order in which they were presented during the eight-month study. Once Institutional Review Board approval was obtained, informed consent letters were secured from the participating school board and its teachers. Information letters were then given to parents and students, and the study was initiated (see Ethical Assurances section of this chapter for details). Students in the participating school district were randomly assigned by the school district to appropriate grade-level classes at the beginning of the school year; participating classrooms were randomly assigned to control and experimental groups and pre-intervention measures were gathered before beginning the intervention in October 2008. Then intervention was conducted for the experimental group from October 2008 through May 2009. At the end of May, data from post-intervention measures were gathered (see Data Collection, Processing, and Analysis section of this chapter for details). A flowchart giving the chronological order of the procedures is presented in Figure 3.

Examining theEffects ofBrain Gym Interventions on Student Academic Performance and Behaviors

Random Assignmentof Students to Classrooms & Random assignment ofClassrooms to Groups

Experimental Group

Control Group

Pretest Standardized Assessment Scores

Pretest Standardized Assessment Scores

(2008 TAKS Reading, TAKS Math, & BASC-II)

(2008 TAKS Reading, TAKS Math, & BASC-II)

Training for Staff & Students and Implement Brain Gym for Experimental Group

Posttest

Standardized Assessment Scores

Posttest Standardized Assessment Scores

(2009 TAKS Reading, TAKS Math, & BASC-II)

(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 ofBrain 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 General Education Group At-risk Group Reading Math Reading Math Mean 2235.070 2232.390 1994.090 1996.600 Stand. Deviation 184.890 200.300 90.150 93.480 0.384 -0.594 Skewness 0.053 -0.833 Stand. Error of Skew 0.141 0.141 0.291 0.281 -0.134 0.593 -0.252 Kurtosis 0.126 0.574 Stand. Error of Kurtosis 0.282 0.281 0.555 MDiff. Test F t Sig. Sig. 4f General Education Group Reading 0.178 0.673 -0.073 295 0.942 -1.574 Math 296 0.499 1.370 0.243 0.677 15.769 At-risk Group Reading 0.539 0.466 -1.371 66 0.175 -30.430 0.926 Math 0.928 0.339 0.093 71 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, Sig.= significance. M Diff. = mean difference.

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 Reading Exp 161 60.010 150.371 11.851 Con 137 -3.610 152.080 12.993 Math Exp 160 1.170 146.663 11.595 At-risk Group Con 27 48.000 132.232 25.448 Reading Exp 41 122.440 146.382 22.861 Math 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

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 General Education Group

i

Mean Standard Deviation Skewness Stand. Error of Skew Kurtosis Stand. Error of Kurtosis

52.960 147.122 0.275 0.141 0.270 0.282

-1.030 148.952 0.175 0.141 1.427 0.282 At-risk Group

Mean Standard Deviation Skewness Stand. Error of Skew Kurtosis Stand. Error of Kurtosis Test

F

92.880 144.653 0.295 0.291 0.588 0.574 Sig.

Reading Math

0.465 1.693

0.496 0.194

Reading Math

0.617 0.332

0.435 0.566

t df General Education Group -0.897 295 295 -0.275 At-risk Group -2.130 66 71 -2.418

32.620 129.730 0.647 0.281 1.461 0.555 Sig.

MDiffi

0.370 0.784

-15.381 17.365

0.037 0.018

-74.439 -72.236

Note. Statistics are based on 2009 TAKS change scores. F = Levene's testforhomogneity 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.

Consistency 92 4 0

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'

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 Adaptive Mean Stand. Deviation Skewness Stand. Error of Skew Kurtosis Stand. Error of Kurtosis

44.540 11.357 0.081 0.343 -1.006 0.674

Mean Stand. Deviation Skewness Stand. Error of Skew Kurtosis Stand. Error of Kurtosis Test

F

37.730 8.473 0.955 0.427 1.054 0.833 Sig.

Adaptive External Internal School Problems BSI

0.597 0.545 0.011 0.087 0.118

0.444 0.464 0.919 0.769 0.732

Adaptive External Internal School Problems BSI

0.786 0.248 1.103 0.939 0.029

0.383 0.623 0.303 0.341 0.865

External Internal Sch. Prb. General Education Group 57.730 49.520 55.920 11.078 11.438 14.805 0.841 1.003 0.476 0.343 0.343 0.343 -0.184 -0.759 -0.075 0.674 0.674 0.674 At-risk Group 65.000 54.430 61.700 13.948 11.258 9.617 0.456 0.427 0.230 0.427 0.427 0.427 -0.576 -0.833 -1.213 0.833 0.833 0.833 t Sig. df General Education Group 1.973 46 0.054 -1.343 46 0.186 -1.692 0.097 46 -1.906 46 0.063 46 0.249 -1.167 At-risk Group 0.210 28 0.835 0.164 28 0.871 0.056 28 0.955 0.158 28 0.875 0.459 28 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 Group N M SEM Scale SD General Education Group -0.050 1.634 Adaptive Con 22 7.662 Exp 7.000 26 8.718 1.710 Externalizing Con 22 -2.140 9.785 2.086 Exp 26 6.650 9.204 1.805 Con 22 -1.680 8.952 1.908 Internalzing Exp 26 3.960 7.544 1.480 22 0.360 School Problems Con 8.878 1.893 7.080 1.475 Exp 26 7.520 BSI Con 22 -0.050 2.083 9.771 Exp 26 6.120 7.881 1.546 At-risk Group Con 12 3.900 8.364 2.660 Adaptive 9.150 1.917 Exp 18 8.573 12 1.500 Externalizing Con 10.427 3.297 9.000 8.772 1.961 Exp 18 Con 12 -0.700 4.104 Internalzing 12.979 18 4.750 1.748 Exp 7.820 Con 12 2.500 10.840 3.428 School Problems Exp 18 9.000 6.759 1.511 BSI Con 12 4.800 10.840 3.428 8.300 1.703 Exp 18 7.618 Note. Statistics are based on 2009 BASC-II change scores. BSI = Behavior Symptoms Index. Con = control group. Exp = experimental group. In order to determine if the improvements in behaviors were statistically significant, assumptions needed for accurate use of t were evaluated. The control and experimental groups' distribution of change scores were normal with no significant skew or kurtosis for Externalizing, Internalizing, Behavior Symptoms, School Problems, and Adaptive behavior measures for both the general education and the at-risk groups (see

Table 7). As shown in Table 7, the variance between these behavior measures for each of the groups was similar according to the results of Levene 's Test for Homogeneity of Variance. Based upon these results and the fact that the groups did not significantly differ in size, ratio level data met assumptions necessary for accurate use of t tests. In order to test null research hypotheses, results of two-tailed independent samples t tests, with equal variance assumed, were examined. According to t test results, behavior improvements were statistically significant at a = .05 for the general education class-wide behavior measures: Externalizing (7(46) = -3.20, p < .01), Internalizing (7(46) = -2.37, p = .02), School Problems (7(46) = -2.84,;? = .01), Behavior Symptoms (7(46) = -2.42,;? = .02), and Adaptive (7(46) = -2.95,;? = .01) behaviors (see Table 7). Therefore, the null hypothesis for the class-wide behavior measures was rejected and the alternative hypothesis, "Dennison 's 26 'Brain Gym' movements, as a general education class-wide intervention, have a significant effect on primary grade-level (second though sixth grades) student behaviors as measured by the BASC-II teacher behavior rating instrument." was accepted with a 95% level of confidence. The effect size for the at-risk group was small (r2pb = .07) indicating that results may not appear to be significant even when they actually are. According to t test results, the at-risk behavior group's results were mixed when the null hypothesis was tested. Behavior improvements were statistically significant at a = .05 for students demonstrating at-risk levels of School Problem (7(28) = -2.07, p < .05) and Externalizing (7(28) = -2.07, p < .05) behaviors (see Table 7). Findings indicated that School Problem and Externalizing behavior improvements for the at-risk group were statically significant at the 95% confidence level. However, behavior improvements were not statistically

109 significant at a = .05 for students identified as at-risk in the areas of Internalizing (/(28) = -1.44,p = .16), Behavior Symptoms (7(28) = -1.03,/? = .31), and Adaptive (f(28) = -1.59, p = .12) behaviors (see Table 7). Examination of data revealed that within-group variability for these measures was higher than originally predicted resulting in weak statistical power (7 - /? = .25). This means that there is a 75% probability of making a Type II error (accepting the null hypothesis when it actually should have been rejected). The experimental group did experience greater improvements than the control group even though the effect size was small and statistical power was weak, so accepting the null hypothesis for the at-risk group's maladaptive and adaptive behavior measures is questionable. Evaluation of the research hypothesis for the at-risk behavior measures was confounded due to mixed results.

110 Table 7 Statistics 2009 BASC-II Change Score Measures Adaptive

External Internal Sch. Prb. BSI General Education Group Mean 3.770 2.630 1.380 4.000 3.290 Stand. Deviation 8.902 10365 8.611 8.759 9.237 Skewness 0.871 -0.121 0.729 -0.673 0.554 Stand. Error of Skew 0.343 0344 0.343 0343 0.343 Kurtosis 1.350 0393 5.058 0266 0.675 Stand. Error of Kurtosis 0.674 0.674 0.674 0.674 0.674 At-risk GrouD Mean 7.400 6.500 2.930 6.830 7.130 Stand. Deviation 8.744 8.567 9.853 9.958 8.792 Skewness 0.897 -2.060 0.398 -1205 0.655 Stand. Error of Skew 0.427 0.427 0.427 0.427 0.427 -0.189 4.134 1.808 -0.281 Kurtosis 0.655 Stand. Error of Kurtosis 0.833 0.833 0.833 0.833 0.833 / MDiff. Test F Sig. Sig. df General Education Group Adaptive 0.879 0.353 -2.947 46 0.005 -7.045 46 0.002 -8.790 External 0.016 0.900 -3203 -2372 46 0.022 -5.644 Internal 0.252 0.618 -2.837 46 0.007 -6.713 School Problems 0.309 0.581 0.020 -6.161 0.001 0.977 -2.418 46 BSI At-risk*3roun Adaptive 0.220 0.643 -1.591 28 0.123 -5.250 -2.074 28 0.047 External 0.586 0.450 -7.500 28 0.161 Internal 1.343 0.257 -1.439 -5.450 -2.067 28 0.048 School Problems 0.179 -6.500 1.896 -1.029 28 0312 1.660 0.208 -3.500 BSI 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

Ill 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, r2pb = .07 for behavior measures) and weak statistical power (1 - ft = . 11 for academic measures; 1 - /? = .25 for behavior measures). Therefore, the probability of making an error is 89% when utilizing the results of this study to determine that 'Brain Gym' has no significant effects on general education students' reading and math performance. The probability of making an error regarding the efficacy of 'Brain Gym' on at-risk students' anxiety, depression, withdrawal, somatization, atypicality, and adaptive skills is 75%. The confounding

112 variables associated with underestimating within-group variability limit interpretation and applicability of the findings of this study for these measures. Improvements in student performance were statistically significant for classroom behaviors and at-risk reading, math, Externalizing, and School Problem behavior measures. These findings indicate that educators can be 95% confident that primary grade-level general education students who received 'Brain Gym' as a classroom intervention will demonstrate significant gains in classroom behaviors. There is also a 95% probability that students who are at-risk of failing reading or math, or demonstrate inappropriate levels of aggression, conduct problems, learning difficulties, hyperactivity, or attention problems will experience significant gains compared to similar students who do not receive 'Brain Gym'. These findings are supported by two previous quasi-experimental studies that also found 'Brain Gym' had significant positive effects on students' academic performance and behaviors as measured by the TAKS tests and standardized behavior ratings (Spalding, 2005; Trahan & Carpenter, 2004). Furthermore, midline movement theory and perceptual-motor training theory support the findings of this study and provide plausible explanations as to why 'Brain Gym' movements (which cross the midlines) have a positive effect on students' academic performance and behaviors. Midline movement studies conducted in the 1990s and resultant theory indicate that providing frequent opportunity to cross the three midlines of the human body improves cognitive functions and emotional regulation (Cores, 1999; Surburg & Eason, 1999; Woodard & Surburg 1999). In addition, perceptual-motor training theory predicts that movement increases the number of neural pathway connections and thereby results in increased capacity for

113 cognitive functions and more efficient communication throughout the nervous system (Hannaford, 2005). In order to appraise the applicability of the findings of this study it is important to consider educators' perception of the potential value of movement-based programs. Teachers rated instruction time as the most important variable influencing student academic performance (Tremarche et al., 2007). Educators also expressed concern that 'Brain Gym' activities would increase classroom disruptive behaviors (Spaulding, 2005). Therefore, educators are reluctant to implement movement-based programs such as 'Brain Gym' due to negative perceptions regarding the impact on student academic performance and behavior. Contrary to teacher beliefs, the findings of this study indicated that primary grade-level general education students who receive 'Brain Gym' as a classroom intervention demonstrate greater improvements in academic performance and behaviors compared to similar students who did not receive the intervention. Therefore, reducing the amount of time devoted to academic instruction in order to complete 'Brain Gym' activities twice daily (approximately 20 minutes per day) over the course of the academic school year did not negatively impact academic performance or student behaviors. At the end of the school year (conclusion of the study) students elected to meet with the researcher to discuss the Brain Gym program. Students requested that 'Brain Gym' activities continue for the next school year. They reported the 'Brain Gym' movements were beneficial in school and outside of school, with 81% of the students reporting that the movements helped them to sleep, maintain focus and concentration, recall information, solve problems, and improve athletic skills. Students rated specific

114 'Brain Gym' activities as more beneficial including; water, cross-crawl, lazy eights, hook-ups, brain buttons, energy yawn, calf pump, and double doodles. Teachers also reported that students elected to use 'Brain Gym' activities during testing and other stressful times. Based upon this information, it appears that students found the program to be beneficial. These findings are supported by studies conducted by Hillman and his colleagues' extensive review of research in 2008 concluding, reduction of instructional time to increase the time devoted to movement-based activity does not lead to a decline in student academic performance. Furthermore, Spaulding's study found that students participating in 'Brain Gym' activities demonstrated improved classroom behaviors. The results of these studies, as well as this current study emphasize the value of movement in promoting academic performance and positive behaviors. The findings of this study may alleviate educators' concerns regarding potential negative effects of implementing movement-based programs such 'Brain Gym' in the general education classroom environment. According to the results of this study, 'Brain Gym' has significant positive effects on at-risk students' reading, math, aggression, conduct problems, hyperactivity, inattention, and learning problems. The design of this study complies with Rtl research guidelines in IDEA 2004. Therefore, educators may confidently and legally utilize Brian Gym within the Rtl process to address at-risk students reading, math, externalizing behaviors, and school problem behaviors. The findings of this study impact the field of education in numerous areas, including reading, math, classroom management, school behavior concerns, Rtl, and

115 educational kinesiology. These findings, along with the findings of previous studies and established theory, imply that movement-based programs such as 'Brain Gym' have the potential to promote school success for many students. While change in the educational field is generally a slow process, the findings of this study may help promote positive change in the educational environment through increased awareness and use of diverse teaching methods including educational kinesiology programs such as 'Brain Gym' in the general education classroom setting. Summary The purpose of this quantitative experimental study was to examine the effects of Dennison's 26 'Brain Gym' movements as a tier-one Rtl and a class-wide general education intervention on primary grade-level students' (at-risk and overall populations) academic performance and behaviors as measured by the TAKS Reading, TAKS Math, and BASC-II instruments (Dennison, 2003). In order to accomplish this, the 'Brain Gym' Three Day Rotation Plan was implemented in experimental group classrooms twice daily, with teachers reporting implementation approximately 85% of the recommended time over duration of the eight-month study. According to statistical analysis, there is a 95% probability that no significant pre-existing differences were present between the control and experimental groups' reading or math performance or behaviors prior to implementing the 'Brain Gym' intervention. While extraneous variables may have an impact on these measures, educators can reasonably assume that any significant differences on these measures at the conclusion of the study were likely due to the effects of the activities.

116 The results of this study demonstrated that primary grade-level general education students who received 'Brain Gym' as an intervention experienced greater gains in academic performance and behaviors compared to similar students who did not receive the intervention. These gains were statistically significant at the 95% confidence level for classroom behaviors and tier-one reading, math, aggression, conduct problems, hyperactivity, inattention, and learning problems. Thus, there is a 95% probability that when 'Brain Gym' is offered as a primary grade-level classroom intervention, students' behaviors will significantly improve. Also, there is a 95% probability that students struggling with reading, math, aggression, conduct problems, hyperactivity, inattention, and learning problems will experience significant gains in the areas of concern. Unfortunately, gains were not statistically significant for the general education groups' academic measures or at-risk groups' Internalizing, Behavior Symptoms, or Adaptive behavior measures. Within-group variance was much higher than originally estimated and effect size was small (r2pb — .002 for academic measures, r2pb = .07 for behavior measures); resulting in a high probability of making a Type II error (fi = 89% for general education academic measures and 75% for these at-risk behavior measures). Therefore, no conclusions may be made with confidence regarding the general education groups' academic measures or the at-risk groups' Internalizing, Behavior Symptoms, or Adaptive behavior measures. This information should assist educators in making informed decision regarding the use of 'Brain Gym' as an academic and behavior intervention within the primary grade-level general education setting.

117 CHAPTER 5: IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND CONCLUSIONS Dennison proposes that 'Brain Gym' can effectively meet diverse needs of students straggling with academic and behavior problems, while having minimal loss of instructional time (Brain Gym International/Educational Kinesiology Foundation, 2008). This has important implications because educators report that 54% of American students in public education are at-risk of failing due to academic and behavior difficulties, and over 70% of students are performing below federally-defined levels of proficiency (Baker et al., 2006; Pellegrino, 2007). Federal law now stipulates that empirical scientifically research-based interventions must be available to all students when early signs of struggling are observed (Baker et al., 2006). Though the benefits of movement on cognition, emotions, and behaviors have been well-documented by numerous sound experimental studies, the research base supporting the efficacy of 'Brain Gym' on student academic performance and behaviors is limited and inconclusive (Hyatt, 2007; Martin & Chalmers, 2007). In order to meet the current needs of the public education system and satisfy federal research guidelines, a control group experimental design using two-tailed independent samples t tests (a = .05) was conceived to explore the efficacy of 'Brain Gym' in meeting students' academic and behaviors needs. The purpose of this quantitative experimental study was to examine the effects of Dennison's 26 'Brain Gym' movements as a tier-one Rtl and a class-wide general education intervention on primary grade-level students' (at-risk as well as overall populations) academic performance and behaviors measured by the TAKS Reading, TAKS Math, and BASC-II instruments These results may help educators determine if 'Brain Gym' can provide an essential service as a

118 classroom management and academic intervention for several populations of primary grade-level students within the general education setting and Rtl framework. In other words, the findings should help educators determine if 'Brain Gym' may play a viable role in the quest for educational excellence for all students. There are several limitations innate in the purpose and design of this study that are worth noting. This study included only primary grade-level general education students so applicability of 'Brain Gym' to students with special needs or secondary grade-level students is unknown. Academic measures included only reading and math. While performance in reading and math influences student performance in other subject areas, generalizations of the findings to other subjects should be made with caution. In addition, this study evaluated only the efficacy of 'Brain Gym'; therefore, the findings of this study may not be applicable to other movement-based programs. In this chapter, the implications, recommendations, and conclusions of this study will be discussed. The implications section will provide a recap of the research problem, review the findings of this study, and discuss how these findings compare with the results of related studies. This section will also offer plausible applications of this study. Limitations associated with this study and recommendations for future research will then be discussed. A summary of the chapter will be presented along with final conclusions. Implications Federal laws now require all students to pass state standardized assessments at a federally-defined proficiency level by 2014 and educators must provide scientific research-based interventions in order to meet this requirement (Pellegrino, 2007). Unfortunately, the number of students struggling academically and behaviorally is

119 growing at an alarming rate and the current educational research base is inadequate to meet the demand for sound interventions (Glover & DiPerna, 2007). Though Dennison claims his 'Brain Gym' program is effective in meeting a diverse range of students' needs, the research base supporting such claims is limited (Hyatt, 2007). Therefore, four major research questions were developed and the null hypothesis for each question was tested in order to evaluate the effects of Dennison's 26 'Brain Gym' movements on general education primary grade-level students' academic performance and behaviors. The first research question asked, "What is the effect of Dennison's 26 'Brain Gym' movements as a general education class-wide intervention on primary grade-level (third through sixth grades) student academic performance as measured by the TAKS Reading and TAKS Math tests? " In order to answer this question the null hypothesis, "Dennison's 26 'Brain Gym' movements, as a general education class-wide intervention, have no significant effect on primary grade-level (third through sixth grades) student academic performance as measured by the TAKS Reading and TAKS Math tests," was tested. Academic measures indicated participants who received 'Brain Gym' as an intervention experienced greater gains in TAKS reading and math test scores than students who did not receive the intervention. The gains on the TAKS Reading (t(295) = -.90, p = .37) and TAKS Math (t(295) = -2%,p = .78) tests were not statistically significant at a .05 level for the general education students' group (including both students who are succeeding and at-risk of failing reading and math) indicating the null hypothesis should be accepted for these measures. However, retrospective examination of data revealed that the within-group variability for the general education participants was much higher than originally predicted and therefore the effect size was small (r2pb = .002), resulting in weak

120 statistical power (7 - B = .11). Thus, the probability of accepting the null hypothesis when it should have been rejected is 89% for the general education academic measures. These factors significantly limit interpretations of the findings for this group and no conclusions may be confidently made regarding the effects of 'Brain Gym' as a classroom intervention for use with the overall population of general education primary grade-level students. The second research question asked, "What is the effect ofDennison 's 26 'Brain Gym' movements as a general education tier-one intervention within the Rtlprocess on primary grade-level (third through sixth grades) at-risk student academic performance as measured by the TAKS Reading and TAKS Math tests? " In order to answer this question the null hypothesis, "Dennison 's 26 'Brain Gym' movements, as a general education tier-one intervention within the Rtl process, have no significant effect on primary grade-level (third through sixth grades) at-risk student academic performance as measured by the TAKS Reading and TAKS Math tests, " was tested. Academic measures indicated the at-risk students who received 'Brain Gym' as a tier-one Rtl intervention experienced statistically significant greater gains on TAKS reading and math test scores than students who did not receive the intervention. Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected and the alternative hypothesis was accepted for at-risk students' reading 0(66) = -2.13,p = .04) and math (7(71) = -2.42, p = .01) measures. Educators can be 95% confident (i.e., a = .05) that 'Brain Gym' is an effective Rtl intervention for addressing academic needs of general education primary grade-level students identified as at-risk for failing reading or math.

121 The third research question asked, "What is the effect ofDennison 's 26 'Brain Gym' movements as a general education class-wide intervention on primary grade-level (second through sixth grades) student behaviors as measured by the BASC-II teacher behavior rating instrument? " In order to answer this question the null hypothesis, "Dennison 's 26 'Brain Gym' movements, as a general education class-wide intervention, have no significant effect on primary grade-level (second through sixth grades) student behaviors as measured by the BASC-II teacher behavior rating instrument, " was tested. Behavior measures indicated the participants receiving 'Brain Gym' as an intervention experienced greater improvements in behavior than students who did not receive it. These gains were statistically significant for all adaptive and maladaptive behavior measures for the general education group. Based upon the results of this study, the null hypothesis was rejected and the alternative hypothesis was accepted for the general education students' maladaptive behaviors (t(46) = -2.71, p = .01) and adaptive behaviors (/(46) = -2.95, p = .01). This means that educators can be 95% confident (i.e., a = .05) that 'Brain Gym' is an effective classroom behavior management intervention in reducing primary grade-level general education students' aggression, conduct problems, hyperactivity, depression, anxiety, somatization, inattention, learning problems, atypicality, and withdrawal. Furthermore, educators can be 95% confident that 'Brain Gym' is an effective classroom behavior intervention for improving primary grade-level students' adaptive behavior skills. The fourth research question asked, "What is the effect ofDennison's 26 'Brain Gym' movements as a general education tier-one intervention within the Rtlprocess on primary grade-level (second through sixth grades) at-risk student behaviors as measured

by the BASC-II teacher behavior rating instrument? " In order to answer this question the null hypothesis, "Dennison 's 26 'Brain Gym' movements, as a general education tier-one intervention within the Rtlprocess, have no significant effect on primary grade-level (second though sixth grades) at-risk student behaviors as measured by the BASC-II teacher behavior rating instrument, " was tested. Behavior measures indicated the participants who received 'Brain Gym' as an intervention experienced greater improvements in behavior than students who did not receive the intervention. However, the findings for the at-risk students' behavior measures were mixed. Gains were statistically significant for the School Problems (/(28) = -2.07, p < .05), and Externalizing (/(28) = -2.07, p < .05) behavior measures. However, 'Brain Gym' did not appear to significantly improve behavior for students struggling with Internalizing Behaviors (7(28) = -1.44,;? = .16), Behavior Symptoms (/(28) = -\.03,p = .31), and Adaptive Behaviors (/(28) = -1.5 9,/? = . 12) which implies that the null hypothesis should be accepted for these measures. However, examination of data revealed within-group variance was much higher than predicted and the effect size was small (r2pb = .07), yielding insufficient statistical power (i - ft - .25) to adequately guard against making an error when accepting the null hypothesis. This means that there is a 75% probability of accepting Ho when it should be rejected. These factors significantly limit interpretations of the findings for this group. Therefore, no conclusions may be confidently made regarding the effects of 'Brain Gym' as an Rtl intervention for addressing anxiety, depression, somatization, withdrawal, atypical, or adaptive behaviors based upon the findings of this study. Because gains were statistically significant for the at-risk groups' Externalizing and School Problem behavior measures, the findings imply that the null

hypothesis should be rejected and the alternative hypothesis accepted for students' identified as at-risk in these areas. Based upon these findings, educators can be 95% confident (a = .05) that 'Brain Gym' is an effective Rtl intervention for students struggling with aggression, conduct problems, hyperactivity, inattention, and learning problems. The findings of this study are supported by two earlier 'Brain Gym' studies conducted by Spalding and Trahan and Carpenter (Spalding, 2004; Trahan & Carpenter, 2005). These studies employed similar research designs (quasi-experimental design), similar samples (general education primary grade-level students), and measurements (academic and behavior measures). Therefore, where findings of these studies are confirmed by the findings of this study, confidence may be added to interpretations. Trahan and Carpenter utilized a quantitative quasi-experimental design to evaluate the effects of 'Brain Gym' movements on general education primary grade-level students' academic performance and behaviors. According to Trahan and Carpenter, classes participating in 'Brain Gym' movements twice daily demonstrated statistically significant gains on standardized reading assessments and the number of disciplinary office referrals significantly decreased when compared to classes not participating in the 'Brain Gym' program. Spaulding conducted a qualitative quasi-experimental study to evaluate the efficacy of 'Brain Gym' as an Rtl academic and behavior intervention for primary grade-level at-risk students and found that 'Brain Gym' movements had a positive effect on at-risk students' academic performance in reading, math, handwriting, classroom behavior, ability to maintain focus, and physical posture. Spaulding's and Trahan and Carpenter's studies substantiate the findings of this study. The findings of this study,

along with the findings of these two studies provide persuasive evidence that 'Brain Gym' is effective as a classroom management strategy and Rtl academic intervention for at-risk students' reading and math needs. These studies also support the premise that the limitations in this study that compromised statistical power likely led to confounding the results, where gains were not statistically significant. There are several notable limitations regarding the application of the findings of this study. This scope of this study did not address whether or not educators should use 'Brain Gym' over other movement-based programs. Further, the effects of 'Brain Gym' on special populations and secondary grade-level students were not evaluated. In addition, academic performance measures only included students' reading and math performance. Therefore, conclusions regarding the efficacy of'Brain Gym' in meeting special education students or secondary grade-level students needs, how the program may impact student performance in subject areas other than reading and math, and whether 'Brain Gym' programs are more effective than other movement-based programs may not be drawn from the findings of this study. Further research is needed to answer these questions. Recommendations The findings of this study suggest that 'Brain Gym', when implemented as a tier-one intervention within the Rtl framework and as a class-wide general education intervention, has the potential for addressing a diverse range of students' reading, math, and behavior concerns. Rtl guidelines require educators to use research-based interventions, but it does not require identifying the most effective intervention. Therefore, the focus of this study was on the effects of 'Brain Gym' rather than

125 comparing effects of different movement-based programs on student performance. Understanding how movement-based programs compare and contrast would be valuable information for educators when selecting movement-based interventions. Further research comparing the efficacy of 'Brain Gym' and other movement-based interventions may help guide educators' decision-making process when selecting an educational kinesthetic program as a general education intervention. The efficacy of 'Brain Gym' as a general education classroom intervention and Rtl tier-one intervention for primary grade-level students' academic performance and behaviors were evaluated in this study. There are few studies evaluating the efficacy of 'Brain Gym' as an intervention with secondary students or with special populations. Research regarding Dennison's claims about the efficacy of specific 'Brain Gym' movements in meeting highly specialized students' needs (for example the 'Lazy Eights' movement for addressing writing) is limited. Studies such as these may have the potential of increasing the applicability of'Brain Gym' to secondary students, special populations, and as secondary or tertiary interventions within the Rtl process. This study indicated that students who received 'Brain Gym' as an intervention demonstrated greater improvements on all behavior and academic measures compared to those who did not receive the intervention. However, where these gains were not statistically significant, the effect size was small and statistical power was weak. In order to correct this dilemma, the sample size for this study would need to be considerably larger than organically predicted. Therefore, no conclusions regarding at-risk students Internalizing, Behavior Symptoms, and Adaptive behaviors or general education students' academic performance were able to be confidently made since the probability of

126 making an error when rejecting Ho was high. Based on these findings, future studies with larger sample sizes are warranted to determine the efficacy of 'Brain Gym' regarding these measures. Finally, IDEA 2004 and NCLB mandates require that only empirical research-based interventions be used to meet the needs of all students showing signs of struggling academically or behaviorally (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2007). The educational research base is limited so teachers are in a quandary when attempting to locate Rtl interventions. The design of this study meets IDEA 2004 federal research criteria. Findings indicate that 'Brain Gym' is effective in significantly improving at-risk students reading and math performance when implemented as a tier-one Rtl intervention. Furthermore, findings demonstrate that 'Brain Gym' significantly improves classroom behaviors when implemented as a general education intervention. Therefore, educators should consider 'Brain Gym' as a viable tool to improve primary grade-level students' performance. In order to support educators' efforts to identify research-based intervention, the United States Department of Education's Institute of Education Sciences established the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC). According to WWC (2009), its goal is to provide educators with a centralized and trusted source of scientific evidence for evidence-based best practices in education (What Works Clearinghouse, 2009). Educational research may be submitted to WWC for review and, if stringent research standards are met, the intervention is then posted on WWC's web-site. 'Brain Gym' is not currently on the WWC list of research-based interventions so submitting 'Brain Gym' research supporting the efficacy of the program would have the potential to promote its awareness and provide validation from a trusted source.

127 Conclusions The findings of this study suggest that 'Brain Gym' is effective as an intervention with primary grade-level students for improving Adaptive, Externalizing, Internalizing, Behavior Symptoms, and School Problem Behaviors, as a tier-one intervention within the Rtl process for students struggling in math and reading, and with Externalizing and School Problem behaviors (see Appendixes A, B, C, and D). Because this study concurs with those of Trahan and Carpenter (2005) and Spalding (2004) assurance is added to these conclusions. The research design utilized in this study meets IDEA 2004 and NCLB federal mandates for use of empirical, scientific research-based interventions and positive, proactive behavior interventions in the public education setting (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2007; Baker et al., 2006). Therefore, educators may use 'Brain Gym' with confidence as a general education classroom management intervention and as a tier-one Rtl intervention for struggling students' math, reading, aggression, conduct disorder, hyperactivity, inattention, and learning problems. To promote awareness of 'Brain Gym' among educators and provide added assurance for those considering 'Brain Gym', additional research is needed. Research evaluating the effects of 'Brain Gym' as a secondary and tertiary intervention within the Rtl process, as well as evaluating efficacy with secondary grade-level students, is warranted. Providing scientific 'Brain Gym' research that meets Rtl criteria to the U.S. Department of Education's What Works Clearinghouse for review would promote awareness and provide scientific validation through a centralized and trusted source.

REFERENCES Ayres, A.J. (2005). Sensory integration and the child: Understanding hidden sensory challenges. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services. Baker, J., Kamphaus, R., Home, A., and Winsor, A. (2006). Evidence for population-based perspectives on children's behavioral adjustment and needs for service delivery in schools. School Psychology Review, 35(1), 31-45. Baker, T. C. (2005). The use of mini-exercise breaks in the classroom management of ADHD-type behaviors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Capella University. Brain Gym International/Educational Kinesiology Foundation. (2008). About 'Brain Gym'. Ventura, CA. Brain Gym International/Educational Kinesiology Foundation. Retrieved June 2, 2008, from http://www.braingym.org/about Brain Gym International/Educational Kinesiology Foundation. (2009). Find courses. Retrieved January 22,2009, from http://www.braingym.org/schedule?level=l Borden, K., and Abbott, B. (2005). Research design and methods (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Caine, G., Nummela-Caine, & R. Crowell, S. (1999). Mindshifts: A brain-based process for restricting restructuring schools and renewing education (2nd ed.). Tucson, AZ: Zephyr. Corso, M. (1999). Children who desperately want to read, but are not working at grade level: Use movement patterns as "Windows " to discover why. Part III: The frontal midline. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED432751) Danielson, L., Doolittle, J., & Bradley, R. (2007). Professional development, capacity building, and research needs: Critical issues for response to intervention implementation. School Psychology Review. 36(A), 632-637. Defur, S. (2002). Educational reform, high-stakes assessment, and students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 4-14. Dennison, P. E. (1997). What is wrong with me anyway? Children need understanding, not labels. 'Brain Gym' Journal, 11(3), 1-15. Dennison, P. E. (1981). Switching on: The whole brain answer to Dyslexia. Ventura, Ca: Edu-Kinesthetics. Dennison, P. E. (2003). What are Edu-K's three dimensions? Retrieved August 3, 2008, from http://www.braingym.org/faq.html

129 Diamond, S. (2001). Educational kinesiology movement and sensory integration: A review of recent relevant neuroscientiflc literature. 'Brain Gym' Journal, 15(1, 2), n.p. Dustman, R. (1990). Age and physical fitness effects on EEG, ERP's, visual sensitivity, and cognition. Neurobiological Aging, 11, 193-200. Dwyer, T., Blizzard, L., & Dean, K. (1996). Physical activity and performance in children. Nutrition Review, 54(4), 27-32. Dwyer, T., Coonan, W.E., Leitch, D.R., Hetzel, B.S., and Baghurst, R.A. (1983). An investigation of the effects of physical activity on the health of primary school students in Australia. International Journal of Epidemiology, 12(3), 308-313. Ferree, R. M. (2001). 'Brain Gym' RTM, exercise, and cognition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia. Fuchs, L., & Fuchs, D. (2007). A model for implementing responsiveness to intervention. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(5), 14-20. Gall, M. D., Gall, J.P., & Borg W. R. (2007). Educational research: An introduction (8th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education. Glover, T. A., & DiPerna, J. C. (2007). Service delivery for response to intervention core components and directions for future research. School Psychology Review, 36(A), 526-540. Goddard, S. (1996). A teacher's window into the child's mind. Eugene, OR: Fern Ridge. Guthrie, J. & Springer, M (2004). A nation at risk revisited: Did "wrong" reasoning result in "right" results? At what cost? Peabody Journal of Education, 79(1), 7. Hailman, D. & Abell, T. (1980). Right hemisphere dominance for attention: The mechanism underlying hemispheric asymmetries in attention. Neurology, 30, 327330. Hall, E. (2007). Integration: Helping to get our kids moving and learning. Physical Educator, 64(3), 123-129. Halla-Poe, D. (2002). A matrix model: For children with atypical behaviors. Coral Springs, Fl: Llumina. Hannaford, C. (2005). 'Smart Moves': Why learning is not all in your head. Salt Lake City, UT: Great River Books.

Heiman, G. (2003). Basic statistics for the behavior sciences (4th ed.). New York: Houghton-Mifflin. Hillman, C , Erickson, K., and Kramer, A. (2008). Be smart, exercise your heart: exercise effects on brain and cognition. Science and Society, 9(2), 58-65. Hyatt, K. J. (2007). Building stronger brains or wishful thinking? Remedial and Special Education, 28(2), 117-125. Jacob, S. & Hartshorne, T. S. (2003). Ethics and law for school psychologists (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Jordan-Black, J. (2005). The effects of the Primary Movement programme on the academic performance of children attending ordinary primary school. Journal of Research in Special Education Needs, 5 (3), 101. Kaufman, E., Robinson, E., Belial, K., Akers, C , Haase-Wittier, P., & Martindale, L. (2008). Engaging students with brain based learning. Techniques: Connecting Education and Careers, 83(6), 50-55. Kamphaus, R. W. & Frick, P. J. (2002). Clinical assessment of child and adolescent personality and behavior (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Kephart, N. (1971). The slow learner in the classroom (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill. Kohl, F., McLaughlin, M., & Nagle, K. (2006). Alternate achievement standards and assessments: a descriptive investigation of 16 states. Exceptional Children, 73, 107-124. Kratchwill, T., Hoagwood, K. (2005). Evidence-based parent and family interventions in school psychology: Conceptual and methodological considerations in advancing best practices. School Psychology Quarterly, 20(A), 504-512. Kronenberger and Meyer (2001).77ie child clinicians' handbook (2nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Lardon, M. and Polich, J. (1996), EEG changes from long-term physical exercise. Biological Psychology, 44,19-30. Lenth, R. V. (2009). Java Applets for Power and Sample Size [Computer software]. Retrieved October 23, 2009, from http://www.stat.uiowa.edu/~rlenth/Power Liu, Y., Chen, H., & Yu, L. (2008). Up-regulation of hippocampus' TrkB and synaptotagmin is involved in treadmill exercise-enhanced aversive memory in mice. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 90(1), 81-89.

131 MacGinite, W., MacGintie, R., Maria, K., & Hughes, K. (2007). Gates-MacGinities reading tests, forms S andT(4th ed.). Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside Publishing. Masgutova, S. (1999). Effect of the EDU-K exercises on the work of the muscles and dynamic and postural reflexes. Freiburg, Germany: Freiburger Kinesiologietage: Institute fur Angewandte Kinesiologie. Kinesiologie Kongress Deutschland. Martin, L., & Chalmers, G. (2007). The relationship between academic achievement and physical fitness. Physical Educator, 64(4), 214-222. Meders, A. R. (2000). 'Brain Gym' three-day rotation: For the integration of body and mind. Ventura, Ca: Edu-Kinesthetics. Mulrine, C , Prater, M, & Jenkins, A. (2008). The active classroom: Supporting students with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder through exercise. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(5), 16-23. National Association of State Directors of Special Education. (2005). Response to intervention: Policy considerations and implementation. Alexandria, VA. Retieved DATE from http://www.lexile.com/EntrancePageHtml.aspx?! National Panel of Reading. (2008). Summary. Rockville, MD: Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health. Retrieved August 15, 2008, from http://www.nationalreadingpanel.org/Publications/summary.htm National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2008). Curriculum focal points for mathematics in prekindergarten through eight grades. Reston, VA. Retrieved August 20, 2008, from http://www.nctm.org/standards/content.aspx?id=270 Pearson, Inc. (2009). BASC-II. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Retrieved July, 2009, from http://www.pearsonassessments.com/basc.aspx Pellegrino, J. (2007). Should NAEP performance standards be used for setting standards for state assessments? (National assessment of educational progress). Phi Delta Kappan, 88, 539-542. Prasse, D. P. (2006). Legal supports for problem-solving systems. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 7-916. Raudenbush, S. (2002). Scientifically-based research. U.S. Department of Education Seminar on Scientifically-Based Research. Washington, D.C., 2002. Retrieved June 2, 2008, from http://www.ed.gov/ofiices/OESE/esea/research/

Reynolds, C. R., and Kamphaus, W. R. (2006). Behavior assessment system for children: Teacher rating scale (2nd ed.). Bloomington, MN: Pearson Assessments. Region VII Educational Service Center. (2009). DMAC Solutions: Overview. Retrieved June 4, 2009, from Region VII Education Service Center web site: http://www.esc7.net Reinke, W., Lewis-Palmer, T., Merrell, K (2008). The classroom check-up: Class-wide teacher consultation model for increasing praise and decreasing disruptive behaviors. School Psychology Review, 37 (3), 315-332. Riverside Publishing. (2009a). Gates-MacGinities reading tests, forms S and T. (4th ed.). Retrieved July 6, 2008, from http://www.riverpub.com/products/gmrt/index.html Riverside Publishing. (2009b). Iowa Test of Basic Skills. Retrieved June 8, 2009, from http://www.riverpub.com/products/itbs/index.html Shavelson, R. J. & Towne, L. (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Siley, B., & Etnier, J. (2003). The relationship between physical activity and cognition in children: A meta-analysis. Pediatric Exercise Science, 15, 243-256. Smith, T. E. (2005). IDEA 2004: Another round in the reauthorization process. Remedial and Special Education, 26, 314-320. Spalding, J. (2004). Discovering the experiences of contralateral movement across the midline by teachers and their students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado. Sprick, R., Garrison, M., & Howard, L. (1998). CHAMPS: A proactive and positive approach to classroom management. Eugene, OR: Pacific Northwest. SPSS, Inc. (2007). SPSS 16.0 Brief Guide. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Surburg, P. & Eason, B. (1993). Effects of midline-crossing on reaction time and movement of mentally retarded subjects. Adapted Physical Quarterly, 10, 269280. Surburg, P. & Eason, B. (1999). Midline-crossing inhabitation: An indicator of developmental delay. Laterality, 4, 333-343. Texas Education Agency (2008a). Department of Curriculum. Retrieved August 20, 2008, from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/curriculum/

133 Texas Education Agency (2008b). Highlights of the 2007 accountability ratings. Retrieved July 22, 2008, from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfi-eport/account/2007/highlights.pdf Texas Education Agency (2008c). Student assessment division. Retrieved June 17, 2009, from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index3 .aspx?id=3534&menu_id3=793 Texas Education Agency (2008d). Student assessment division: Released tests, answer keys, and scoring guides. Retrieved July 20, 2008, from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/student.assessment/resources/release/ Trahan, T., & Carpenter, C. (2005). Project save our learners. Unpublished manuscript. Tremarche, P., Robinson, E., & Graham L. (2007). Physical education and its effect on primary grade-level testing results. Physical Educator, 64(2), 58-65. Tyldesley, B. (1989). Muscles nerves and movement kinesiology in daily living. Oxford, England: Blackwell Scientific Publications. Voss, D. S. (2006). An examination of the effects of 'Brain Gym' RTMon the self-reported symptoms of stress in school-age children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Saybrook Graduate School and Research Center. U. S. Department of Education. (2008). National Center on Student Progress Monitoring. Retrieved August 10, 2008, from http://www.studentprogress.org/library/articles.asp VanDeGraff, K. (1984). Human Anatomy. Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown. Walker, L. Y. (2008). Effects of a classroom-based contralateral movement program on grade 3 students' numeracy and reading scores. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Walden University. What Works Clearinghouse (2009). Institute of Education Sciences Homepage, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved June 8, 2009, from: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/ Wilhite, K, Braaten, S., Frey, L., & Wilder, L. (2007). Using the behavioral objective sequence in the classroom. Intervention in School and Clinic, 42(4), 212-219. Witcher, S. H. (2001). Effects of educational kinesiology, previous performance, gender, and socioeconomic status on phonological awareness literacy screening scores of kindergarten students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

134 Yen, W., & Henderson, D. (2002). Professional standards related to using large-scale state assessments in decisions for individual students. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 35, 132-143.

135

APPENDIXES

Appendix A Key Reading Components

Phonemes

Phonemic Awareness

Fluency

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.

Vocabulary

Reading vocabulary refers to words we recognize or use in print in order to communicate effectively.

Comprehension

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

The ability to adapt readily to changes in the environment.

Social Skills

Skills needed to interact in a socially acceptable manner with peers and adults.

Leadership

Functional Communication

Study Skills

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

The tendency to be overly active, rush through tasks or activities, and act without thinking.

Aggression

The tendency to be physically or verbally hostile in a manner that is threatening to others.

Conduct Problems

The tendency for children ages 6-21 years old to engage in rule-breaking behaviors.

Anxiety

The tendency to be nervous, fearful, or worried about real or imagined problems.

Depression

Excessive feelings of unhappiness, sadness, or stress.

Somatization

The tendency to be overly sensitive or to complain about relatively minor physical problems or discomfort.

Atypicality

The tendency to behave in ways that are considered odd or immature.

Withdrawal

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

Includes Hyperactivity, Aggression, and Conduct Problems narrowband scales.

Internalizing Problems

Includes Anxiety, Depression, and Somatization narrowband scales.

Behavior Symptom Index

Includes Atypicality and Withdrawal narrowband scales.

School Problems

Includes Attention Problems, and Learning Problems narrowband scales.

Appendix E Three Day Rotation Plan (Meders, 2000) Day 1 Morning

'PACE'*, Owl, Thinking Caps, Double Doodles

Afternoon

'PACE'*, Belly Breathing, S'PACE' Buttons, Calf Pump, Energizer

Morning

'PACE'*, Earth Buttons, Elephant, Footflex

Afternoon

'PACE'*, Lazy 8, Rocker, Arm Activation, Energy Yawn

Morning

'PACE'*, Grounder, Balance Buttons, Alphabet 8

Afternoon

'PACE'*, Cross Crawl Sit-ups, Gravity Glider, Neck Rolls, Positive Points

Day 2

Day 3

'PACE'* p

Drink Water.

A

Brain Buttons.

C

Cross Crawl

E

Hook-ups

Appendix F IRB Application

APPLICATION FOR THE REVIEW O F 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 •

Category 1: Exempt

£