Effects of A Brain Improvement Program On Students' Reading

EFFECTS OF A BRAIN IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ON STUDENTS’ READING
ACHIEVEMENT
Edelmira Sánchez, B.A., M.Ed.
Dissertation Prepared for the Degree of
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS
May 2013
APPROVED:
George Morrison, Major Professor

Carol Hagen, Committee Member
Angela Randall, Committee Member
Lloyd Kinnison, Committee Member
Nancy Nelson, Chair, Department of Teacher
Education and Administration
Jerry R. Thomas, Dean of the College of
Education
Mark Wardell, Dean of the Toulouse Graduate
School
Sánchez, Edelmira. Effects of a Brain Improvement Program on Students’
Reading Achievement. Doctor of Education (Early Childhood Education), May 2013,
126 pp., 17 tables, 3 figures, references, 123 titles.
How to close the reading achievement gap among K-12 students is an ongoing
emphasis for educators in the 21st century. The purpose of the study was to determine
if using kinesthetic movements from the Brain Gym® program improved the reading
achievement of Grade 3 Hispanic and African American students. Students from four
elementary schools participated in the study. The students in the control and
experimental groups completed a 2004 release TAKS third grade reading assessment
for the pretest and posttest. Students in the experimental group completed five selected
kinesthetic movements from the Brain Gym® program five minutes at the beginning of
each Monday through Friday school day. The intervention lasted 30 days and a total of
150 minutes. Data were analyzed using a 2 x 2 mixed between-within subjects analysis
of variance. Findings revealed that performing the five kinesthetic movements from the
Brain Gym® program did not increase students’ reading achievement scores. Only the
variable of time between pretest and posttest affected students’ reading scores. The
results from this study did not support the findings of other studies of the effectiveness
of kinesthetic movements.
Copyright 2013
By
Edelmira Sánchez
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The completion of this paper would not have been possible without my faith in
God and the help and prayers from my family, friends, church family, and colleagues. I
would first like to acknowledge my husband for his patience during my countless hours
of being away from home or being glued to my computer working. I thank you for
believing in me especially when I didn’t believe in myself. I appreciate your
understanding and support for me during my adventure through this doctorate program.
Next, I thank my children for the sacrifices they made during the times that I took away
from them so that I could do my doctoral work after a long day at work. I know it was
difficult for you, yet you still love me. I thank you all for the heavy sacrifices you have
made throughout all the years I have taken to complete this project. Your words of
encouragement have meant so much and helped sustain me through the rough periods.
I thank my grandchildren for understanding when I couldn’t attend one of your events. I
know I have missed so much that I will never be able to regain; however, my love has
never wavered for you. I would like to express my appreciation to Dr. George Morrison
for always encouraging me to “stay the course” and for being patient with me. I thank
my friend and colleague Dr. Kevin Dartt, who also helped through this process. Your
friendship, support, and trust have been invaluable gifts. Finally, I must express my
appreciation to the members of my committee: Dr. Lloyd Kinnison for hanging in there
all along and for all the support you have given me. I appreciate Doctors Carol Hagen
and Angela Randall for taking me on at a late date. My committee has played an
integral part in helping me to accomplish my goal.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... iii
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ vi
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................ viii
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1
Background of the Reading Achievement Gap in the United States .............. 2

Statement of the Problem .............................................................................. 9
Purpose of the Study.................................................................................... 11
Research Questions..................................................................................... 11
Significance of the Study.............................................................................. 12
Definition of Terms ....................................................................................... 13
Summary...................................................................................................... 16
2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ...................................................................... 17
Reading Skills .............................................................................................. 17

Understanding Brain-based Education......................................................... 20
Physical Activity and Cognition .................................................................... 24
Physical Fitness and Learning ..................................................................... 26
Brain Gym® Studies ..................................................................................... 42
Response to Intervention (RTI) .................................................................... 46
Summary...................................................................................................... 48
3. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................. 49
Participants .................................................................................................. 50
Data Collection Procedure ........................................................................... 57
Data Analysis ............................................................................................... 60
Summary...................................................................................................... 62
4. RESULTS ......................................................................................................... 63
Preliminary Screening Procedures ............................................................... 63

Descriptive Statistics .................................................................................... 67
Research Questions..................................................................................... 68
5. SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................... 82
iv
Summary and Discussion ............................................................................ 82
Contributions and Limitations ....................................................................... 86
Implications .................................................................................................. 87
APPENDIX A: INTRODUCTORY LETTER TO PRINCIPALS ....................................... 89
APPENDIX B: INTRODUCTORY LETTER TO PARENTS: eNGLISH .......................... 91
APPENDIX C: INTRODUCTORY LETTER TO PARENTS: SPANISH.......................... 93
APPENDIX D: APPROVED INFORMED CONSENT AND ASSENT: ENGLISH........... 95
APPENDIX E: APPROVED INFORMED CONSENT AND ASSENT: SPANISH ........... 99
APPENDIX F: EXCERPT OF ENGLISH VERSION OF TAKS READING

ASSESSMENT FOR GRADE 3 ................................................................................. 103
APPENDIX G: EXCERPT OF SPANISH VERSION OF TAKS READING

ASSESSMENT FOR GRADE 3 ................................................................................. 110
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 117
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. S1, S2, S3, and S4 Student Demographics ...................................................... 51
2. Research Assistants’ Demographics ................................................................ 53
3. Pearson χ2 Results for the Cross Tabulations Comparing Between

Incomplete and Complete Participant Data (n = 76) ......................................... 64
4. Skewness and Kurtosis Statistics for the Dependent Variables (n = 67)........... 65
5. Frequencies of Control and Experimental Group Participation by

School (n = 67) .................................................................................................. 67
6. Frequencies and Percentages for the Demographic Variables (n = 67)............ 69
7. Descriptive Statistics for the Dependent Measures (n = 67) ............................. 70
8. Means and Standard Deviations for Reading Achievement Across

Time as a Function of the Brain Gym® Intervention .......................................... 71
9. Mixed Between-within Subjects ANOVA Results for Reading

Achievement Across Time as a Function of the Intervention (n = 67) ............... 72

Time as a Function of the Brain Gym® Intervention Within the
Hispanic Sample ............................................................................................... 74

Achievement Across Time as a Function of the Brain Gym® Intervention
Within the Hispanic Sample (n = 48) ................................................................. 74

Time as a Function of the Brain Gym® Intervention Within the African
American Sample .............................................................................................. 76

Within the African American Sample (n = 19) ................................................... 77

Time as a Function of the Brain Gym® Intervention Within the Sample
of Males............................................................................................................. 78
vi
15. Mixed Between-within Subjects ANOVA Results for Reading Achievement
Across Time as a Function of the Brain Gym® Intervention Within the
Sample of Males (n = 43) .................................................................................. 79

Time as a Function of the Brain Gym® Intervention Within the Sample of
Females ............................................................................................................ 80

Within the Sample of Females (n = 24) ............................................................. 81
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Score distribution for pretest total score.............................................................. 66
2. Score distribution for posttest total score ............................................................ 66
3. Mean reading achievement scores across time were higher for the
control group than for the experimental group .................................................... 75
viii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Reading is a vital and essential part of daily life and a skill that, if not strong,
brings about lifelong challenges, both academic and occupational. Therefore, reading
and reading well are essential and foundational for student success. The National
Reading Panel (2000) emphasized the importance of developing reading fluency in the
primary grades as essential for the transfer of literacy skills to other academic areas.
Good readers are active readers who have clear goals in mind when they begin
reading (Torgesen, 2007). Good readers also constantly evaluate whether the text they
are reading meets their goals. They construct, revise, and question as they draw upon,
compare, and integrate prior knowledge with the texts they read. Pinnell and Fountas
(2009) referred to this process of reading as thinking about the text. On the other hand,
struggling students have trouble recognizing the words of age appropriate text,
understanding the text’s language, and understanding textual meaning (Tunmer, 2007).
The United States, in its desire to be an international leader and compete in the
global economy, has called for a broader effort to improve K-12 students’ reading skills.
In Texas state assessments began in 1980. As a result of the No Child Left Behind Act
of 2001 (NCLB, 2002), students are expected to read at a third grade level by the end of
that grade (U.S. Department of Education, 2012). However, student achievement has
not grown to this level fast enough. Such results do not put students on a path to
graduate high school or to succeed in college and the workplace (U.S. Department of
Education, 2012). Rhode Island and the District of Columbia increased performance in
reading at grade level by only the fourth grade, and 38 states showed no significant
change in reading achievment in neither fourth nor eighth grade (National Assessment
1
of Educational Progress [NAEP], 2011). Kentucky was the only state with gains in both
the fourth and eighth grades (NAEP, 2011).
In Texas, according to NAEP (2011) data, White students scored on average a
score of 233, and African American and Hispanic students earned 23 points less than
their White counterparts. No difference between Hispanic and African American
students was detectable in 2011. Texas Education Agency (TEA, 2010) data indicated
the achievement gap between White students and minorities was on average 11%
lower for Hispanic students and 10% lower for African American students. A majority of
the students with low academic achievement in reading are functionally illiterate
(Blackowicz et al., 2010; Bobo, 2009). The problem of the academic achievement gap
continues to loom over educators in the United States (MacDonald & Figueredo, 2010;
Paik & Walhberg, 2007).
Background of the Reading Achievement Gap in the United States
In the United States, most teachers target classroom instruction to the average
student in order to meet the needs of every child and to raise students’ test scores.
Federal education programs, such as the Reading Excellence Act of 1998, NCLB
(2002), and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEIA),
fuel teaching to the average. Response to intervention (RTI) is a recommended
practice that stems from IDEIA and has since been a focus for states and school
districts (Allington, 2009; Shinn, 2007). NCLB along with IDEIA essentially ensure that
schools monitor and improve the progress of populations known for traditionally not
doing well academically, specifically in reading.
2
These targeted populations include students who have trouble with reading,
come from economically disadvantaged homes, have special needs, and are
considered limited English proficient (LEP; Brayboy, Castagno, & Maughan, 2007;
Linan-Thompson, 2007; Snyder & Dillow, 2011). Over time, many labels have referred
to students to whom learning to read does not come easily. Some of those labels are
at-risk, high risk, twice exceptional, or culturally and linguistically diverse learners
(Moore-Hart & Karabenick, 2009; Oropeza, Varghese, & Kanno, 2010; Sullivan, 2011),
and learning disabled (Brown, 2009; Obiakor, Beachum, & Harris, 2010; Shinn, 2007;
Sullivan, 2011).
The at-risk term is vitally important to the debate about intervening to improve
students’ reading abilities. When students, especially English language learners
(ELLs), are poor readers in the lower elementary grades, their reading problems often
become worse as they advance to higher grades and progress through high school. In
high school, they are exposed to more complex concepts and courses all of which
require reading. Students identified as ELL have the highest grade retention and high
school dropout rates of all youth (Duran, 2008). The consequences of dropping out of
high school are life changing. Young people entering high school in the bottom quartile
of achievement are substantially more likely than students in the top quartile to drop out
of school (Torgesen, 2007). The drop out rate, though declining, is lower for Whites and
Blacks than it is for Hispanics, setting in motion a host of negative social and economic
outcomes for students and their families (Blackowicz et al., 2010; Torgesen, 2007).
Students with reading deficiences who leave high school before graduating, are more
likely to be placed in special education, become teenage parents, commit juvenile
criminal offenses, and remain less than fully literate (Brayboy et al., 2007). When these
3
students grow up, they become adults who depend on welfare and unemployment
insurance and populate prison systems (Duran, 2008; NAEP, 2011; Pinnell & Fountas,
2009).
The process of closing the gap in literacy development is widely studied and
debated (Al Otaiba et al., 2009; Boscardin, Muthen, Francis, & Backer, 2008; Cooke,
Kretlow, & Helf, 2010; Denton & Al Otaiba, 2011; Duff et al., 2008; MacDonald &
Figueredo, 2010; Mandara, 2009; Ming & Dukes, 2008; O'Conner, Swanson, &
Geraghty, 2010; Ogle & Correa-Kovtun, 2010; Rasinski, 2003a, 2003b; Rasinski,
Homan, & Biggs, 2009; Rasinski, Samuels, Hiebert, Petscher, & Feller, 2011; Short,
Vogt, & Echevarria, 2008; Soriano, Miranda, Soriano, Nievas, & Felix, 2011; Turner,
2010; Walker-Dalhouse & Risko, 2009; Welsh, 2006). A focus on reading fluency and
comprehension stands at the forefront of addressing the reading achievement problem.
Reading fluency is the ability to recognize sight words that do not need to be sounded
out phonetically and to read continuous text with good momentum, phrasing with
appropriate pausing, intonation, and stress (Ming & Dukes, 2008; Rasinski, 2003b).
Students with reading difficulties exist in every classroom across America. They come
from all educational and economic levels and represent a constant concern and
challenge. Teachers find themselves working with students for whom literacy learning
is difficult (Deshler & Hock, 2009; Goodwin & Ahn, 2010; Pinnell & Fountas, 2009). For
their part, many students want to learn to read, and teachers want to help them learn to
read and are opposed to leaving any student behind (Pinnell & Fountas, 2009).
For decades, the search for ways to prevent and improve reading difficulties,
which include brain-based education, has influenced educators and administrators alike
(Jensen, 2009). Extensive searches for investigating ways by which educators can help
4
all students learn how to read have dominated much of the educational literature for the
last 50 years (Pinnell & Fountas, 2009). The problem of students not reading well is
especially common among minority and culturally diverse students such as African
American and Hispanic students (Allington, 2009; Chard et al., 2008; Pinnell & Fountas,
2009; Martinez, Aricak, & Jewell, 2008). Between 1989 and 2009, the percentage of
public school students who were White decreased from 68% to 55% in all four regions
of the U.S., and the percentage of Hispanic students doubled from 11% to 22% (Snyder
& Dillow, 2011).
By 2009, Hispanic enrollment in public schools in Texas exceeded 11 million
students between the ages of 5 to 17 years who spoke a language other than English
(NAEP, 2011). In 2008-2009, the number of students between the ages of 3 and 21
years in special education services was 6.5 million, with 13% of all public school
enrollments having reading ability as a disability. Also in 2009, greater percentages of
Hispanic and African American students attended high-poverty elementary and
secondary public schools than did Whites. In 2009, 19% of 5 to 17 year olds were from
families living in poverty up from 15% in 2000 and 17% in 1990. A relationship was
found between teachers’ low perceptions of the students attending high-poverty schools
and special education referrals (Brown & Parsons, 2008; Obiakor et al., 2010; Sullivan,
2011).
Since the early 1990s, significant gaps between racial/ethnic groups have
remained steady (Aud et al., 2011). The reading achievement gap demonstrated no
measureable change in the average Grade 4 reading score between 2007 and 2009
(Aud et al., 2011; NAEP, 2011). The US’s national Grade 4 reading scores were
unchanged between 2009 and 2011 (Aud et al., 2011).
5
For Grade 12 students, the average reading score increased by only two points
between 2005 and 2009. In 2009, White students scored 27 points higher in reading
than African American students and 22 points higher than Hispanic students (NAEP,
2011; Aud et al., 2011). Neither score gap was significantly different from the
respective score gaps in previous assessment years. The average combined reading
literacy score was not measurably different from the average score of the 34
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) member countries.
The OECD provides a forum that compares different countries school systems and how
they are preparing their young for modern life. While Hispanic and African American
students have made strides in narrowing the achievement gap that separates them from
their White counterparts in reading achievement, they still lag behind. Even the small
signs of progress have done little to close the achievment gap since the implementation
of NCLB (Muhammad, 2009). Pinnell and Fountas (2009) suggested that while
educators greet increased scores with cautious optimism, a gain of a few points for one
cohort does not necessarily hold true in the assessment of the next cohort, nor does it
tell much about the overall state of literacy education.
No initiatives adopted by educators to increase reading achievement have made
much difference. Students continue to perform with the same average scores and have
a hard time learning to read (Aud et al., 2011). Although many schools often provide
some literacy intervention, many lack sufficient resources. Some of the resources
lacking include teachers skilled in literacy development and appropriate learning
materials to help older students in elementary school reach grade-level standards in
reading.
6
To increase students’ reading scores with the NCLB (2002), Congress
appropriated over $140 billion to states to provide schools with the necessary resources
for ensuring reading improvement among students and to mandate specific guidelines
for reading research, instruction, and accountability. For their part, the nation’s 16,000
school districts spent millions of dollars on educational products and services developed
by textbook publishers, commerical providers, and nonprofit organizations (Allington,
2009). NAEP (2011) reported that total expenditures for instruction per student in public
school elementary and secondary schools rose 39% between the 1989-1990 and 2007-
2008 school years. In 2007, the US spent $10,768 per student on elementary and
secondary education, 45% more money than the OECD average of $7,401 spent per
student (NAEP, 2011).
Schools, according to Pinnell and Fountas (2009), adopted reading program after
reading program confusing teachers and failing to change what students learned. Many
of the programs provided the same instruction to every student without noticeable
curriculum changes. Through all these program adjustments, students still earned the
same average reading scores and teachers continued to be challenged by students
finding it difficult to learn to read, which in turn affected student performance in other
content areas as well (NAEP, 2011).
Title I of the NCLB (2002), special education and bilingual education initiatives,
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), and the Blueprint for
Reform (U.S. Department of Education, 2010) and efforts regarding reauthorizing the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) represented intiatives trying to
ensure that the achievment gap between the poor, disabled, minority, and ELL students
would be closed (Paik & Walhberg, 2007; Snyder & Dillow, 2011). Currently among
7
these initiatives, NCLB Title I reading programs have added at best about two months
worth of reading gains per year for struggling readers, while special eduation programs
have not added any gains in reading. In order for struggling students to attempt to
catch up with their peers, these programs would need to double or even triple the rate
for students’ reading acquisition (Allington, 2009).
In recent years, educators have turned their attention to the emotional side of
learning (Immordino-Yang & Damasio, 2007; Jensen, 2009, 2010; Ratey & Hagerman,
2008; Sousa, 2006). These educators have been concerned with students’ emotional
and intellectual growth and how such growth affects students’ reading abilities.
Immordino-Yang and Damasio (2007) contended that when educators fail to appreciate
the importance of students’ emotions, they fail to appreciate a critical force underlying
student learning. Jensen (2009, 2010) suggested that students’ social-emotional
capacities powerfully affect and even determine whether they develop the ability to
listen and communicate; to concentrate; to recognize, understand, and solve problems;
to cooperate; to modulate their emotional states; to become self-motivating; and to
resolve conflicts adaptively.
Literacy, according to Blackowicz et al. (2010), is the key to academic success.
They suggested that a child who can read by the third grade is unlikely to be involved
with the criminal justice system. On the other hand, four out of five African American
and Hispanic (but mostly African American) incarcerated juveniles read two or more
years below grade level. This achievement gap in reading exists between minority and
non-minority students and between disadvantaged and more advantaged students (Paik
& Walhberg, 2007; Short et al., 2008).
8
Statement of the Problem
The literacy achievement gap exists for students who come from low
socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds, those with special needs, and those who are
limited English proficient (LEP; Brayboy et al., 2007; Linan-Thompson, 2007;
MacDonald & Figueredo, 2010; Obiakor et al., 2010; Snyder & Dillow, 2011). The
achievement gap between minority and non-minority students and between the
socioeconomically disadvantaged and their more advantaged peers continues (Aud et
al., 2011; National Association for the Education of Young Children, 2011). Many
students come from low SES with free or reduced-price lunch benefits, have special
needs, and are LEP (Brayboy et al., 2007; Linan-Thompson, 2007; MacDonald &
Figueredo, 2010; Obiakor et al., 2010; Snyder & Dillow, 2011). Some content that the
achievement gap may be due to the belief that students from challenging circumstances
may suffer from limited intelligence (Boscardin et al., 2008; Matthews, 2010; Rodriguez
& Bellanca, 2007; Rovai, Gallien, & Stiff-Williams, 2007).
One dimension of low achievement can be observed between ELLs and native
English speakers. ELL students have difficulty learning to read in a language that is not
their primary language. Meanwhile, with the continued growth of LEP students in
classrooms, the relationship between literacy proficiency and contiuned low academic
achievement in reading strengthens (Paik & Walhberg, 2007; Short et al., 2008). Many
students who live in poverty do not read at grade level. Socioeconomically
disadvantaged Hispanic and African American students, in particular, lag behind.
Researchers, educators, and policy makers share the responsibility to protect the
students who are at-risk of failure and provide a solution.
9
Brain-based education could be one solution for closing achievement gaps
between minority students and their more advanced counterparts. The overall goal of
brain-based education is to bring insights from brain research into the arena of
education. This effort is designed to enhance teaching and learning. Proponents of
brain-based education, such as Jensen and Sousa (2009), have advocated for a
diverse group of educational practices and approaches. Jensen and Sousa maintained
that the unprecedented explosion of new findings related to the development and
organization of the human brain need to be applied in school settings. These findings
can inform educational practice in meaningful ways to help students. One such
application involves multiple intelligences.
Intelligence, according to Gardner (2004), is multi-faceted and includes the seven
intelligences of linguistic, muscial, logical-mathematical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic,
interpersonal, and intrapersonal. As a result of scientific advances and Gardner’s
unique intelligence theory, educators developed brain-based education approaches to
learning (Jensen, 2010). Gardner advocated the use of enriched educational
environments that nurtured students’ full range of abilities via their multiple intelligences.
Cain, Caine, McClintic, and Klimek (2008) advocated the use of different activities so
that students attention is captured due to the novelty. Advocates of brain-based
education support enriched educational environments that allow teachers to employ
multiple and diverse strategies for presenting content to students (Jensen, 2005, 2008,
2009).
Brain Gym®, a registered trademark by Brain Gym International/
Educational Kinesiology Foundation, uses simple body movements to integrate the
functions of the brain, and activates students’ bodly-kinesthetic intelligence (Dennison &
10
Dennison, 2007). One solution to help close the achievement gap is to use movement
techniques based on the idea that movement enables students to integrate functions of
the brain. The Brain Gym® program integrates both mind and body through the use of
kinesthetic movements. Brain Gym® is aligned with the practices of brain-based
education (Dennison & Dennison, 2007).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to determine if using a series of kinesthetic
movements would improve the reading achievement of Grade 3 Hispanic and African
American students. I postulated that kinesthetic movements could provide a viable
solution for activating brain function and improving reading achievement. To
accomplish this task, I identified a series of five Brain Gym® movements (described in
Chapter 3) to test the effectiveness of performing the movements as a means of
improving reading in a group of third grade Hispanic and African American students. I
identified third grade struggling readers for the study through the universal screener
used as part of Tier I and Tier II of RTI, described in Chapter 3, in five elementary
schools from an urban North Texas district. The tiers were used to identify the
groupings for students whose differing needs can be met with more intensive
instructional approaches. Students targeted for RTI were identified as reading below
the third grade reading level. The third grade students were chosen for this study as
third grade was the first grade level tested with the Texas Assessment of Knowledge
and Skills (TAKS).
Research Questions
The following research questions were used to guide this research study:
11
1. To what extent, if any, do kinesthetic movements increase the reading
achievement of low SES Hispanic and African American third grade students?
achievement of low SES Hispanic third grade students?
achievement of low SES African-American third grade students?
achievement of low SES male third grade students?
achievement of low SES female third grade students?
Significance of the Study
Administrators have removed all or most motor learning activities from the school
curriculum due to a more academic emphasis on increasing test scores. In fact, many
educators have removed any activity considered non-academic from the curriculum.
These non-academic activities have included the physical components of learning,
visual, auditory, fine motor and postural skills essential for learning to take place (Cain
et al., 2008). The creators of the Brain Gym® movements claim the enhancement of
cognitive processing and whole brain learning prepares students to learn (Brain Gym
International, 2011; Dennison & Dennison, 2007; Hannaford, 2005). In addition, Brain
Gym® contains multiple movements purported to help school-aged students in reading,
writing, and math (Hannaford, 2005; Jensen, 2009; Maguire, 2000).
The creators of Brain Gym®, Dennison and Dennison (1994), argue that
“movement is the door to learning” (p. 5) and involves the building of skills used in
12
classrooms and work places. Thus, learning happens through both the movement of
muscles and intellectual skills (Hannaford, 2005). Movement improves students’
performance and attitudes about the learning process (Ratey & Hagerman, 2008;
Sousa, 2006). Brain Gym® represents a holistic approach that promotes whole brain
learning through movement (Dennison & Dennison, 2007; Hannaford, 2005) and
purports to bridge the gap between mind and body.
If the daily application of kinesthetic movements were to enhance students’
reading achievement, then it might also influence future curriculum development and
also inform the literature about uses for Brain Gym® in attempting to influence reading
achievement of Hispanic and African American K-12 students. If the power of
movement raises the Hispanic and African American students’ reading achievement
scores (Hannaford, 2005), then the use of these movements might have extensive
applications for closing the gaps in performance experiences between minorities and
White students.
Definition of Terms
Achievement gap. In education, this gap refers to the disparity in academic
performance between groups of students. The term most often represents the troubling
performance gaps between African American and Hispanic students and their non-
Hispanic, White peers (U.S. Department of Education, 2007).
African American. This term for race refers to a person having origins in any of
the Black racial groups of Africa (Aud et al., 2011).
13
At-risk student. Refers to students in prekindergarten, kindergarten, or Grades 1,
2, or 3, who did not perform satisfactorily on a readiness test or assessment instrument
administered during the current year and who is LEP (TEA, 2010).
Brain Gym® movements. This commercial program of kinesthetic movements is
designed to stimulate a flow of information restoring the innate ability to learn and
function with curiosity and joy (Dennison & Dennison, 2007).
Brain-based education. This type of education requires the engagement of
strategies based on principles derived from an understanding of the brain (Jensen,
2008b).
Hispanic or Latino. This term for race refers to a person of Cuban, Mexican,
Puerto Rican, South or Central American, Spanish culture or origin (Aud et al., 2011).
Limited English proficient. LEP refers to students whose primary or home
language is other than English and who need special language assistance to participate
effectively in school programs (U.S. Department of Education, 2007).
Reading achievement. Students should know how to and be able to comprehend
text, and demonstrate reading ability through performance on assessments (NAEP,
2009). In Texas, reading achievement was measured by the TAKS reading assessment
(TEA, 2004).
Response to intervention. Known as RTI (U. S. Department of Education, 2007),
this is the practice of meeting the academic and behavior needs of all students through
a variety of services. These services should contain the three key elements: (a) high
quality instruction and scientific research-based tiered interventions aligned with
individual student need, (b) frequent monitoring of student progress to make results-
based academic and/or behavioral decisions, (c) application of student response data to
14
important educational decisions (e.g., placement, intervention, curriculum, and
instructional goals and methodologies).
Tier I. Teachers use high quality core instruction aligned with the TEKS in which
about 80% or more are successful. This tier is the crucial foundation of the RTI
instructional model (U.S. Department of Education, 2007).
Tier II. Students are identified for individual or small group intervention in
addition to core class instruction. This level includes scientific research-based
programs, strategies, and procedures designed and employed to supplement, enhance,
and support Tier I activities. District established standard protocol matches appropriate
intervention strategies to specific student needs. Tier II addresses the needs of
approximately 10% to 15% of the RTI-identified students (U.S. Department of
Education, 2007).
Tier III. Students identified for this level of RTI have not responded adequately to
Tiers I and II and receive specific custom-design individual or small group instruction.
Tier III uses problem-solving models beyond the instruction used in Tier II. This level of
intervention is aimed at those students who are identified at-risk academically or
behaviorally and are in need of intensive intervention. Tier III addresses the needs of
approximately 5% to 10% of the RTI-identified students (U.S. Department of Education,
2007).
Title I school. These are schools in which at least 35% of the students in the
school attendance are from low-income families, or at least 35% of the enrolled
students are from low-income families eligible to receive Federal Title I funds. This
status is most frequently measured determined by the percent of students eligible to
receive free and reduced-price lunch (NCLB, 2002).
15
Universal screener. As an initial assessment of knowledge and skills, which
enables the identification of students struggling or lacking specific knowledge or skills in
a given area (U.S. Department of Education, 2007).
White. This term for race refers to a person having origins in any of the original
peoples of Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East (Aud et al., 2011).
Summary
This chapter provided the background of the study, the problem, purpose of the
study, the research questions, significance of the study and key terms. The solution to
help close the achievement gap involved the use of techniques based on the principles
and practices of brain-based education. Chapter 2 presents the literature reviewed for
informing the quasi-experimental study.
16
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Reading in the 21st century demands that all students develop high levels of
literacy in reading achievement. To close the achievement gap, students must be
taught to read and read well, especially at-risk minorities namely Hispanic and African
American students (MacDonald & Figueredo, 2010; Mandara, 2009; Short et al., 2008;
Walker-Dalhouse & Risko, 2009). The purpose of this current study was to determine if
using a series of kinesthetic movements improved the reading achievement of Grade 3
Hispanic and African American students to help close the academic reading
achievement gap. The kinesthetic movements studied were developed for the Brain
Gym® program, which is a registered trademark by Brain Gym International/
Educational Kinesiology Foundation. To understand the components of the research,
the literature review sections include (a) basic reading skills, (b) brain-based education,
(c) physical activity and cognition, (d) physical fitness and learning, (e) Brain Gym®
studies, (f) RTI.
Reading Skills
Whether teaching reading is by early identification (Boscardin et al., 2008; Cooke
et al., 2010; MacDonald & Figueredo, 2010), by teaching phonics (Denton & Al Otaiba,
2011), by teaching fluency (Al Otaiba et al., 2009; Ming & Dukes, 2008; O'Conner et al.,
2010; Rasinski, 2003a, 2003b; Rasinski et al., 2009; Rasinski et al., 2011; Soriano et
al., 2011; Welsh, 2006), by teaching content vocabulary (Duff et al., 2008; Ogle &
Correa-Kovtun, 2010), or by teaching comprehension (Turner, 2010), the need is
17
prevelant. Marie Clay (1998) addressed the challenge of literacy improvement in the
following manner:
The challenge of literacy improvement is fine-tuning programs that are already
satisfactory to better results. To ensure that by the age of nine no children have
fallen dangerously behind their peers in literacy development, special attention
must be paid to the preschool years, the preparatory class at school entry, the
first two years of literacy instruction, and early interventions that provide catch-up
experiencies. From the ages of eight to eleven, some children do not become
able to read and write more difficult texts, not only because of different levels of
comptence but also because of uneveness and weaknesses in some aspects of
their literacy processing. Differentiated instruction would help to develop different
strengths on different kinds of literacy tasks. When you are doing a job like
literacy teaching well, it is hard to think about doing it even better. (p. 197)
Helping students learn to read and read well is an important role for early childhood
educators and for American society (Clay, 1998; Cooke et al., 2010).
According to Pennington (2010), a basic understanding of grammar is
fundamental for higher levels of communication, for standardized tests such as high
school graduation tests, and for national tests such as the SAT which echoes the
present study need for students learning to read well. Pennington investigated the use
of kinesthetic movement as a vehicle by which to teach grammar to high school
students. The participants in Pennington’s study included 277 secondary students
enrolled in college preparation level English courses. The students in the study were
from Grades 9 through 11 and were assigned to classes by compterized random
selection. Participants averaged from 14 to 18 years of age and were from middle class
18
backgrounds. The students were 66% Caucasian, 16% Hispanic, 10% African
American, and 8% Other.
Pennington (2010) used Holt, Rienhart, and Winston’s (1996) Elements of
Writing: Language Skills textbook to teach grammar to the students. Two similar tests
derived from the textbook were used for the pretests and the posttests. A 40-question
survey was distributed to the students to collect their different attitudes and perceptions,
demographic data (gender and ethnicity), athletic involvement, musical inclination, other
highly kinesthetic activity involvements, academic preferences, and general
preferences. For qualitative data, the instructors kept brief logs of the grammar lessons
they taught. The data included the dates for each of the 15 specific lessons and brief
descriptions of each of the 15 minutes lessons (Pennington, 2010).
The control and the treatment groups both received the same amount of lessons
(Pennington, 2010). The treatment group experienced kinesthetic activities related to
grammar during the designated 15-minute timeframe. Pennington (2010) based these
activities on her personal experiences in the classroom, advice from other educators,
and online resources. The control group received traditional grammar lessons during
the same 15-minute timeframe. The lessons were completed within five weeks after
which both groups received a posttest and competed the surveys. The pretests and
posttests consisted of 50 questions in length and were made up of four sections: parts
of speech, complements, verbal phrases, and sentence types. Cronbach’s alpha
reliability test showed the reliability of the pretest to be .715 and of the posttest to be
.739 (Pennington, 2010). Scores from the pretests and posttests were analyzed
statistically using independent and dependent sample t-tests.
19
The results showed no significant difference between the control and treatment
groups regarding changes in students’ grammar test scores. However, the kinesthetic
group appeared to be the most popular and to be more enjoyed by the students as
compared to the control group which received solely grammar lessons. This was just
one among many efforts to identify effective programs and practices to help students
learn to read (Allington, 2009; Blackowicz et al., 2010; Brown, 2009). Brain-based
learning represents one of these efforts.
Understanding Brain-based Education
Progress in neuroscience over the past several decades has led to better
understanding of how the brain functions as students learn (Alferink & Farmer-Dougan,
2010). Through advances in neuroscience, a better understanding of how neurons and
neurotransmitters operate has been generated, and data showing correlations between
between brain activity and academic tasks have provided distinct clues into how
students learn (Alferink & Farmer-Dougan, 2010). Advances in the understanding of
neurons in general, and glial cells in particular, have occurred in recent decades. The
understanding of neurotransmitters and synaptic transmission has occurred through
advances in neuroscience. However, Alferink and Farmer-Dougan (2010) defended
neuroscientists’ lack of knowledge about how or whether the number of neurons has a
relationship with the ablity to learn or intelligence. The relationship between the
“quality” of the brain, determined by the number of neurons to the scope of what
students can learn or how they should learn, remains unknown. According to Alferink
and Farmer-Dougan (2010), recent neuroscience evidence has supported traditional
teaching methods. Those methods include repetition and elaborative rehearsal and
20
mastery but not open-ended or problem solving approaches. Concerning memory, the
formation of memories through neural consolidation shows greater results when
students have a number of short learning sessions distributed over a discrete period of
time instead of having one long single session for ensuring long term learning (Alferink
& Farmer-Dougan, 2010). The implications for educators based on these neuroscience
findings include understanding how best practices may be changing to improve both
students’ learning and brain functioning. This implication has led to current theories
concerning brain-based education regardless of whether or not they have been
grounded in neuroscience.
Brain-based education is best understood by three words: engagement,
strategies, and principles (Jensen, 2008a). Brain-based education is the engagement
of strategies based on principles derived from an understanding of the brain as it is
involved in everything students do, think, and feel. Brain-based learning requires a
multidisciplinary approach. Multiple disciplines bind assessment, the school
environment, and instruction into a collaborative program. One affects the other, and all
of these affect students’ brain development. Brain-based educators teach to various
learning styles throughout the course of instruction (Jensen, 2010; Sousa, 2006).
Examples of teaching to learning styles, though not extensive, include the use of hands-
on and kinesthetic activities (Rule, Dockstader, & Stewart, 2006), movement (Peebles,
2007), music (Kreeft, 2006), and dance (Giguere, 2006). Brain research has been
stimulated, in part, by growing concerns about the academic success, health, safety,
and well-being statuses of students in America (Jensen, 2009).
Many have viewed the brain simply as a single organ, part of a larger
neurological system, which controls the body. Singer (2008) argued that the different
21
parts of the brain control different functions, particularly as these functions relate to
learning. Brain research has opened avenues that allow for understanding how the
brain controls students’ gross motor activities. Furthermore, the results of brain
research clearly define the necessary interconnectivity of the brain between mind and
body for deep learning to take place. Learning involves the building of skills. Skills are
used in classrooms and work places, and skills of all types happen through the
coordination and movement of muscles as well as the use of intellect (Hannaford,
2005).
For a great many years, the educational and scientific communities did not agree
on a relationship between thinking and movement (Jensen, 2009, 2010; Sousa, 2006).
Jensen (2008a) argued for no separation of brain, mind, body, feelings, social contacts,
or their respective environments and for no separating the role of the brain and its
influence on student performance on state-level assessments. Jensen (2010)
suggested that academic skills have a brain system that overlaps with social skills.
These are evident in the areas of awareness and attention. The primary factors that
interact, mitigate, or support the academic operating system are basically relationships,
socialization, and social status which play a part in the motivation, decision making, and
cognition needed for everyday success.
Many changes in the conceptualization of the learning process have occurred
based on advances in neuroscience. In the final two decades of the 20th century,
technology paved the way for a paradigm shift regarding the ways people think, live,
and learn. Brain scans through magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), positron emission
tomography (PET), and electroencephalogram (EEG) have offered new ways to
understand and see inside the brain while it is thinking (Jensen, 2008; Sousa, 2006).
22
Scientists have analyzed the brain while patients perform tasks and undergo alternative
states of consciousness, representing events thought to be impossible prior to those
technological inventions. Neuroscience has enabled discoveries and astounding
insights about the brain and how people learn and function (Jensen, 2008b).
Learning is what the human brain does best (Jensen, 2008a). Neural plasticity is
an intrinsic, beneficial characteristic of the nervous system establishing both the ability
to learn and the ability to adapt in response to damage that occurs in the body, in
essence the ability to relearn lost information and skills (Hannaford 2005; Jensen,
2009). Changes in the brain occur as it rewires itself via new stimulation, experience,
and behavior, an activity known as synaptic pruning. In synaptic pruning, the
neurological regulatory process facilitates a productive change in neural structure by
reducing the overall number of neurons or connections. One link from neuroscience to
education occurs from physical movement to learning (Hannaford, 2005; Jensen,
2008b).
Brain research is important to the educational paradigm of the 21st century.
Brain research findings can help educators more effectively teach students while
incorporating research findings from empirical studies, such as those addressing social
conditions, stress, nutrition, environments, exercise, and the brain (Jensen, 2008b).
Neuroscientists have found that during the process of development, the brain is affected
by dramatic and specific environmental conditions that could impact the brain’s intricate
circuitry. In addition, unpredictable stressors impair the brain’s capacity for learning by
affecting not only learning but also health and behavior (Jensen, 2010).
With fewer than 50% of K-12 students in the United States experiencing a daily
physical education class, students need alternative methods for movement and for
23
stimulating the brain (Dennison & Dennison, 2007). According to Stephens, Kinnison,
and Proctor (2012), effective instructional experiences that include physical activity are
critical for optimal brain development. Through innovated brain research, strong links
between physical education and cognition have been generated (Brown & Parsons,
2008; Chomitz et al., 2009; Ratey & Hagerman, 2008).
Physical Activity and Cognition
For many years, scientists viewed the brain as somewhat inflexible and mostly
subject to genetic predispositions. Recently, the brain has been shown to be quite
adaptable (Jensen, 2010). Environmental influences may be more significant to brain
development than hereditary factors. These influences have considerable implications
for educators and may directly affect the pedagogical strategies used in the classroom
(Jensen, 2010). Educators cannot ignore the implications of brain-based research in
the educational environment. A multitude of diverse factors, one of which is movement,
affects cognitive development in K-12 students (Wilmes, Harrington, Kohler-Evans, &
Sumpter, 2008).
Many school administrators have reduced the inclusion of physical activities in
the school day due to time constraints created by pressure to increase students’ high
stakes test scores (Cain et al., 2008; Stephens et al., 2012). Even at the preschool
level, educators have become so focused on benchmarks, data, and accountability that
teachers have shifted away from using sponateneous, imaginative play (Emslie &
Rober, 2009; Ginsberg, 2007). Educators have reduced or eliminated recess to ensure
students have extra time in reading instruction (Emslie & Rober, 2009; Ginsberg, 2007).
24
On the other hand, exercise helps shape the muscles, heart, lungs, and bones
(Chomitz et al., 2009; Ratey & Hagerman, 2008; Reynolds & Nicolson, 2006). Physical
activity increases the production of new brain cells and increases brain mass (Pereira et
al., 2007). Physical activity strengthens the basal ganglia, cerebellum, and the corpus
callosum, all of which represent critical areas for brain effectiveness (Jensen, 2010).
The cerebellum houses the cognitive processes of memory, attention, and organization
of information. Not only does the cerebellum help in organizing the flow of thoughts, but
it also helps with physical movement coordination (Strick, Dum, & Fiez, 2009). Exercise
fuels the brain by increasing the flow of oxygen with high-nutrient food and neurotropins
to enhance growth and greater connections between neurons (Jensen, 2005).
Importantly, exercise triggers the release of the brain-derived neurotropic factor
dopamine (Hannaford, 2005). Dopamine enhances cognition by boosting the ability of
neurons to communicate with one another. This evidence based on neuroimaging has
directly linked neuroscience and learning. The likelihood of a link between classroom
instruction and physical fitness needs consideration to determine the most effective
ways to teach students (Willis, 2007).
Tomporowski, Davis, Miller, and Naglieri (2008) stated that systematic exercise
programs might actually enhance the development of specific types of mental
processing known to be important to students meeting the challenges they encounter in
academics as well as throughout their lifespans. They concluded students’ mental
functioning increases due to exercise training when tasks involve executive functions.
Executive functions occur when performing goal-directed actions. Even simple exercise
training programs represent important methods for enhancing aspects of students’
mental functioning as well as social and cognitive development. The impact of physical
25
activity on students’ physical health as well as on their mental functions and
psychological well-being was found to be highly important (Tomporowski et al., 2008).
Physical Fitness and Learning
Learning occurs as a part of physical fitness. Coe, Pivarknik, Womack, Reeves,
and Malina (2006) determined the effect of physical education class enrollment and
physical activity on academic achievement in a study of 214 sixth grade students. The
students were randomly assigned to physical education classes in either the first or
second semester. The students received 30-minute blocks of physical activity ranging
from light to vigorous. Academic achievement was assessed using the students’ grades
in four core classes and scores on standardized tests. Results indicated similar grades
regardless of whether the students were in first or second semester of physical
education. However, higher grades were associated with vigorous physical activity.
Similarly, Castelli, Hillman, Buck, and Erwin (2007) examined the relationship
between physical fitness and academic achievement of 259 third and fifth grade
students who were overweight in four Illinois public schools. Two of the schools were
considered academically effective with 76.3% of the students meeting standards in
mathematics and reading. In addition, 24.3% of the students in these same two schools
received free or reduced-price lunch. For the students from the other two schools,
46.2% met the standard for mathematics, and 40.6% met the standard for reading, with
66% of the students receiving free or reduced-price lunch. The ethnic distribution of the
students in the study was 78% Caucasian, 12% African American, 5% Asian, 3%
Hispanic, and 2% other. The measures for the participants included five components of
a physical fitness test and two content areas of the Illinois Standard Achievement Test.
26
Castelli et al. found physical fitness to be related to higher academic achievement in
reading and mathematics in the third and fifth grade students, regardless of student
SES.
Jensen (2009) suggested that in order for brain mass to increase and brain
function to become more effective as part of learning, people must engage in totally new
activities. Jensen encouraged school administrators to plan programs with specific
motor activities. Such motor activities include cross-lateral movements requiring the
arm and leg to cross over from one side of the body to the other, bilateral movements
requiring climbing, and unilateral movements requiring reaching. Jensen argued that
these motor activity requirements along with the integration of physical activities across
the curriculum are highly beneficial for the brain. Jensen stated that kinesthetic
activities lead to learning in academic classes and lead students to use the whole brain.
According to Howe and Freedson (2008), reporting on behalf of the President’s
Council on Fitness and Sports, all K-12 students need 30 minutes of physical movement
a day to stimulate the brain, because sensory motor integration is fundamental for
academic achievement. In Texas, schools must provide at least 135 minutes of
moderate or vigorous structured physical activity per week for elementary students and
at least 30 minutes per day in junior high school (National Association for Sport and
Physical Education and the American Heart Association, 2010).
Carlson et al. (2008) employed a multistage longitudinal study with a probability
sample design of a nationally representative group of 5,316 students in kindergarten
who were followed through the fifth grade. The direct academic achievement measures
were scores for mathematics and reading. Data were analyzed at five time points: fall
and spring of kindergarten, spring of first grade, spring of third grade, and spring of fifth
27
grade. The measures included the number of times during the week and minutes per
day that students participated in physical education. Experimental groups were
categorized into three levels of physical activity: (a) low, which incorporated from 0 to 35
minutes per week; (b) medium, with 36 to 69 minutes per week; and (c) high with 70 to
300 minutes per week. Students took standardized mathematics and reading tests to
determine if physical education participation increased academic performance. Item
Response Theory (IRT) and scale scores were calculated for each student. IRT scale
scores represented estimates of the number of items students would have answered
correctly. Family income was categorized into four groups, and the student’s
race/ethnicity and mother’s educational level were used in the data analysis (Carlson et
al., 2008).
Carlson et al. (2008) used multivariate linear regression models to test the
longitudinal association between physical activity and the Item Response Theory (IRT)
scale scores for both mathematics and reading. Data were stratified by gender. The
sample was 52.1% girls, 11.1% Hispanic, and 8.7% African American. The results
revealed some academic benefit and no negative effects from physical activity.
Significant differences by gender were found. No association between physical activity
and academic achievement was found for boys in reading or mathematics, partly due to
the boys being generally more fit than girls. This finding may help explain the noted
benefit of physical education on academic achievement in girls but not in boys (Carlson
et al., 2008).
Carson et al. (2008) observed that teachers reported the most common amount
of exposure students had to physical education was one to two times per week. The
most common durations reported were 16 to 30 minutes for kindergarten and first
28
grade, and 31 to 60 minutes in the third through fifth grades. There was no mention of
how much time second graders spent in physical education. However, Carson et al.
implemented an intervention of one hour per day of physical education and showed a
positive effect on academic scores for both boys and girls compared to 40 minutes per
week. Carson et al. revealed that girls gained a larger advantage than boys in
academic scores with the addition of five hours per week of physical education.
Therefore, Carson et al. concluded that more time in physical education helps students
perform better academically and should be promoted for its many benefits including
eliminating the fear of it negatively affecting academic achievement.
Even though Carson et al. (2008) reported that girls who spent more time in
physical education exhibited a small benefit academic benefit for mathematics and
reading and no benefit was observed for boys, their findings supported those from
previous studies. Essentially, Carson et al. confirmed that time spent in physical
education did not harm academic achievement. The fear that spending more time in
physical education may affect academics negatively may not be a legitimate reason for
reducing or even eliminating physical education programs (Carson et al., 2008).
Dills, Morgan, and Rotthoff (2011) reported on using the same sample as Carson
et al. (2008). When controlling for a variety of student, classroom, and school
characteristics, neither recess nor physical education (PE) showed any statistically
significant or economically significant impact on student learning (Dills et al., 2011).
Dills et al. reported that increasing recess by an additional minute per week led to
increases in the mean for reading. The largest effect reported was on reading in
kindergarten, while other effects showed negative results. Adding one minute per week
of PE increased the gain in math by one standard deviation (Dills et al., 2011). This
29
finding supported Carson et al.’s (2008) findings, by showing that changing the time
spent in recess and PE is unlikely to affect student test scores. Further, PE may
represent productive time for learning as the students may be better able to concentrate
due to their opportunities for physical activity (Dills et al., 2011).
Physical activity, an important component of everyday life, occurs in many forms
during the early childhood years through jumping, running, and tumbling that seem to
come naturally but are not performed at proficient levels (Goodway & Branta, 2003).
During early childhood years, students learn mainly through movement and physical
manipulation of objects (Piaget, 1964). Physical activity serves the purpose of
stimulating physiological development, creating functional motor abilities, and
organizing the brain for subsequent cognitive processing in the physical, social-
emotional, and cognitive domains of learning (Bloom, 1956). In early childhood,
physical activity stimulates growth by supporting normal bone and muscle development
as well as cognition.
Goodway and Branta (2003) reported on the benefits of a Motor Skill Intervention
(MSI) program with disadvantaged preschool students. The participants in the study
included 31 four-year-old African American students enrolled in an urban preschool
program. The control group included 28 African American 4-year-olds identified as
disadvantaged or at-risk. The participants were screened with the Test of Gross Motor
Development (TGMD, 1985), an objective preschool readiness test assessing cognitive,
affective, and psychomotor objectives to determine the need for intervention services.
The MSI group received 24 lessons during a 12-week period with each lesson lasting 45
minutes in length. The sessions were composed of a rotation of activities including
hopping, galloping, jumping, ball bouncing, striking, kicking, catching, and throwing.
30
The control group received typical preschool day activities including free play, centers,
circle time, directed play in centers, table work, and snack time. There were no
organized physical activities for the control group, and free play and recess were left up
to the control group teacher’s discretion.
Goodway and Branta (2003) used two separate 2 x 2 analyses of variance
(ANOVAs) with repeated measures to assess the influence of the motor skill
intervention program on locomotor skills and object control development. They found
no significant differences between the two groups prior to intervention. Locomotor skills
were 15% for the MSI group and 26% for the control. Object control skills were 17% for
the MSI group and 18% for the control group. Post intervention locomotor skills for the
MSI group increased from 10.32 to 20.03, which translated into raw scores ranging from
15% to 80%. For the control group, the object control scores increased from 11.61 to
13.54, indicating the same raw score of 26% at both pre and post intervention
measurements. The object control skill results in the MSI group improved from 3.07 to
12.77, with the raw score ranging from 17% to 80%. The control group improved from
3.14 to 7.29, with the raw score ranging from 18% to 24% (Goodway & Branta, 2003).
The control group demonstrated significant changes from the pretest to posttest,
but the MSI group yielded significantly higher post intervention results than the control
group (Goodway & Branta, 2003). Consequently, the MSI group increased in all skills
with 10 of 12 skills improving by at least one criterion element of form. Goodway and
Branta (2003) demonstrated that disadvantaged students benefit from 12 weeks of
motor skill intervention. Based on their results, daily physical activity in the preschool
years or early childhood is not performed at proficient levels, and intervention yields
positive results for students’ physical abilities.
31
Robinson and Goodway (2009) studied 117 African American preschoolers from
two Head Start centers located in a large urban Midwestern city. One center was used
for the intervention, and one center was used for the control group. The two 9-week
instructional interventions involved 18 sessions with each lesson being 30 minutes in
length and targeting preschoolers who were at-risk of developmental delays and in poor
health. The intervention group was randomly assigned to a low autonomy intervention
group (n = 38). The mastery motivational climate group (n = 39) was the control group.
There were no significant age differences between the groups. All participants were
videotaped performing the two trials of six skills composed of catch, dribble, kick,
overhand throw, strike, and underhand roll. All skills were part of the Test of Gross
Motor Development Second Edition (TGMD-2, 2000), a well validated criterion and
norm referenced standardized test.
The comparison group received 30 minutes of unstructured free play that did not
involve any teacher direction for 9 weeks (Robinson & Goodway, 2009). The
unstructured free play totaled 18 sessions. The object control intervention occurred
over the same 9 weeks, but these students experienced 18 motor skill sessions. The
participants in the low autonomy group followed the guidance of the teacher. The
participants received 12 minutes of instruction for two skills on each day of instruction.
In total, the participants from both groups received a total of 432 minutes of instruction
or free play. The mastery motivational climate group received identical instructional
approach as the low autonomy group, with the exception that they navigated
independently through the activity stations where they chose the amount of time they
spent, the skill, and the difficulty of the activity. Posttest data were collected the week
following the 9-week intervention, and retention tests were completed on the object
32
control performance. Robinson and Goodway (2009) employed an ANOVA with
repeated measures to examine the influence of the motor skill intervention on the low
autonomy and mastery motivational climate groups. The ANOVA revealed significant
main effects for the time, treatment, and treatment-by-time interactions. In regard to the
treatment-by-time interaction, 73% of the pretest to retention changes in the students’
scores were attributed to the skill instructional time. Before the start of the intervention,
simple main-effects tests revealed no statistically significant differences for the groups.
After the intervention and retention test, significant differences were found in the groups’
TGMD-2 scores. Paired sample t tests from the pretest to retention test revealed
significant improvements in the students’ TGMD-2 scores for both the low autonomy
and mastery motivational climate groups, but no differences were present from pretest
to retention between the groups. Based on the literature (e.g., Goodway & Branta,
2003), the hypothesis was that both the low autonomy and mastery motivational climate
instructional climates resulted in more proficient TGMD-2 scores compared to the
participants in the comparision group. Robinson and Goodway (2009) revealed
significant motor development gains regardless of instructional climate. Such gains,
said Clark ( 2007), allow students to function fully and independently in their
environments and contribute to students’ cognitive, social, motor, and physical
development.
Chomitz et al. (2009) found a relationship between physical fitness and academic
achievement using a sample of diverse urban public school students. A total of 1,841
students in Grades 4 through 8 were assessed using the Massachusetts
Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) achievement tests, as well as fitness and
body mass index (BMI), during a one-year timeframe. To assess the association
33
between the fitness and the MCAS test and to evaluate the strength of the association
between fitness achievement and the odds of passing the math and English sections of
the MCAS, Chomitz et al. used bivariate correlation, multivariate regression analysis,
chi-square tests, and ANOVA. Measures used for the study were academic, fitness,
weight, and socio demographic (i.e., race/ethnicity and SES). Sixty-five percent of the
students were non-White, including 284 Hispanic and 784 African American students.
Forty-five percent of the students were from low income households. Almost 40% of the
students were either overweight or at-risk of being overweight. Statistically significant
differences between groups were observed for gender (p < .05), ethnicity (p < .05), SES
(p < .001), and weight status (p < .001). Overall, 72% passed the math test, and 89%
passed the English test and 3.6 out of 5 of the fitness tests. These findings contributed
to a growing body of evidence indicating a significant positive relationship between
physical fitness and student academic achievement (Chomitz et al., 2009).
In the past, educators assessed the domains of learning as separate entities.
Those domains are (a) cognitive representing mental skills, (b) affective representing
feelings or emotions, and (c) psychomotor representing kinesthetic and spatial skills
(Bloom, 1956). However, the three learning domains are intrinsically woven in such a
way that one enhances the other. Childhood development can be positively enhanced
via physical education when applying Bloom’s domains to students in elementary school
grades. Even though the positive effect of physical activity on the cognitive, social, and
physical development of young students is generally acknowledged, little emphasis on
ensuring appropriate physical educational experiences with the early childhood
curriculum has occurred nationally (Stork & Sanders, 2008). The following subsections
address the curricula implications of physical educational experiences including
34
ExerLearning® (a registered trademark of invenTEAM, LLC), dance and learning, and
Brain Gym® and learning.
ExerLearning®
Physical activity is not an option for humans. It is necessary for the brain to learn
and function at its best. The wiring, the circulation, the connection between mind and
body are very real. The brain contains one hundred billion neurons that communicate
with one another through hundreds of different chemicals. Physical activity can
enhance the availability and delivery of those chemicals. Harnessing technology for
activity is the ExerLearning® solution (Staiano & Calvert, 2011).
ExerLearning® is a rhythmic and aerobic balance of activities added to the
regular learning day (Staiano & Calvert, 2011). Hillman and Castelli (2009) determined
that physical education classes, recess periods, and after school exercise programs
provided students with academic benefits. Staiano and Calvert (2011) suggested that
physical activity may increase students’ cognitive control, that is, the ability to pay
attention, and may result in better performance on academic achievement tests.
In Hillman and Castelli’s (2009) study, the participants included 20 nine-year old
students comprised of 8 girls and 12 boys. In the first part of the study, students
performed a series of stimulus discrimination tests known as flanker tasks and a series
of stimulus-discrimination tests for assessing their inhibitory control to resist doing one
thing to do the needed activity at an appropriate time. The first group of students was
tested following a 20-minute resting period over one day. The other group of students
was tested after a 20-minute walk on a treadmill. While the students were walking on
the treadmill, they were wore an electrode cap to measure their brain’s electrical
activity.
35
Results from that portion of the study demonstrated that the students performed
better on the flanker task after an acute bout of walking for 20 minutes (Hillman &
Castelli, 2009). The students were able to attend better, that is, able to block out
distractions (noise) and act on appropriate stimulus even when the environment was
noisy by essentially being able to tune out the noise. To see how exercise would
translate to the classroom environment, the students took an academic achievement
test that measured reading, spelling, and math. As before, Hillman and Castelli (2009)
found better results following exercise. Interestingly, the largest effect found was for
reading comprehension. Hillman and Castelli found that the increase in reading
comprehension equated to almost a full grade level. The effect of exercise on
achievement was not only statistically significant but also meaningful. However, since
walking on a treadmill is not something that students really do and not a valid form of
exercise for them, Hillman and Castelli (2009) worked on an ongoing project involving
treadmill walking at the same intensity as a Wii Fit® exercise which more closely
represents the way K-12 students really do exercise. Wii Fit® is a video exercise game
so popular that as of the spring of 2009, 18.22 million copies of the game had been
sold.
Hillman and Castelli (2009) suggested that daily school-wide assemblies contain
a brief stint of physical activity. They suggested using an intranet or internal TV
channels to broadcast activities to be completed within each classroom. Further
suggestions included scheduling daily outdoor activities as well as offering formal
physical education at the rate of 150 minutes per week at the elementary level and 225
minutes at the secondary level (Howe & Freedson, 2008). Lastly, Hillman and Castelli
suggested that classroom teachers integrate physical activities into the learning. Based
36
on the above evidence, ExerLearning® is beneficial for young K-12 students and likely
so for older students. ExerLearning delivers, through the integration of technology,
games, and movement-inducing fitness, learning opportunities for students in Grades K
through 12 (Hillman & Castelli, 2009).
Ratey and Hagerman (2008) commented in Spark that the objective of Project
Zero Hour was to generate innovative opportunities for students needing to improve
their literacy skills. The idea was to determine whether working out before school
offered performance boosts in reading ability and other subjects. Project Zero Hour was
an educational experiment in a Chicago school conducted by physical education
teachers producing not only the fittest but also some of the smartest kids in the nation
(Ratey & Hagerman, 2008). Ratey and Hagerman believed in the notion supported by
emerging research that physical activity sparks biological changes that bind brain cells
to each other enabling the brain to learn. The more neuroscientists discover about the
effects of physical activity on the brain, the clearer the role of exercise becomes.
Stimulus concerning student readiness creates an environment by which students are
ready, able, and willing to learn. Students in the experiment demonstrated a 17%
higher rate of increase in reading and comprehension than their counterparts who were
not involved in the experiment (Ratey & Hagerman, 2008). These findings suggested
the need to consider the influence of specific movement types such as dance on
learning.
Dance and Learning
Giguere (2006) showed a connection between the ways K-12 students think,
reason, and problem solving in language arts and dance. Giguere suggested that the
overlaps in cognition might be a good starting point for using dance in the design of
37
elementary curricula. Giguere conducted an intervention study to test this hypothesis.
The first part of the study included 100 fifth grade students who participated in a series
of three dance classes with an even distribution of boys and girls. Each 45-minute class
consisted of warm-up, stretching, and large locomotor movements through which the
students learned the sequencing of the movements. Directions for the activities were
open-ended so the students could form their own interpretations in a variety of ways.
The final section of the class consisted of group choreography based on a poem. Three
different poems were used that progressed from literal to abstract over the three day
study.
The second part of the study consisted of interviews of the students (Giguere,
2006). Parental permissions were obtained in accordance with the Institutional Review
Board guidelines. The interviews were conducted with two groups of students and
consisted of two parts that were focused on the students’ experiences with creating
poetry and dance movements. The student-interview conversations were graphically
organized into maps. Giguere (2006) concluded that the choreographic process had a
critical role in the scholastic benefits of dance. She suggested that 21st century dance
can reunite body and mind and encouraged dance researchers and educators consider
not only the body’s role in learning but also the mind’s role in motion.
Skoning (2008) included the benefits of using creative movement and dance in
the classroom as teaching tools. These tools are geared to produce increased student
understanding of content along with classroom behavior. By integrating movement and
dance in the classroom, teachers can meet the needs of a variety of learning types,
especially the students who have kinesthetic learning styles (Skoning, 2008). Skoning
integrated creative movement with literature instruction for 27 students, nine of whom
38
had learning and cognitive disabilities. The students showed increased comprehension
of characters, plots, and overall story lines of the novels they read. Skoning suggested
that educators “need to push [them]selves to think of creative ways to meet state and
national learning standards and the many ways that children demonstrate their
intelligence and understanding” (p. 9). Brown and Parsons (2008) echoed this research
by showing that brain function while learning to dance demonstrates that both
hemispheres of the brain are actively engaged.
Brain Gym® and Learning
Current philosophy about teaching students to read includes applying research
establishing the relationship between the mind and body and the importance of
movement in learning (Bobo, 2009; Brown & Parsons, 2008; Cain et al., 2008; Chomitz
et al., 2009; Pennington, 2010). However, few examples of movement-based activities
surfaced to show its application to reading in the elementary school setting. Despite the
growing popularity of brain-based research, much of the evidence for brain development
has not been used for educational measures (Fischer, 2009). One contemporary
approach to the use of movement for brain activation engages kinesthetic stimuli and
activities in promoting reading skill building in students. Kinesthetic movements applied
via the Brain Gym® program represent this approach (Dennison & Dennison, 2007).
Brain Gym® is a program with unique movements and processes that was
developed by Dennison and Dennison (1994). This program began through extensive
study in education, psychology, and neuroscience. Brain Gym® is a holistic approach
that promotes whole brain learning through movement (Dennison & Dennison, 2007;
Hannaford, 2005). Brain Gym® bridges the gap between mind and body, through the
use of simple movements to stimulate brain function necessary for learning (Dennison &
39
Dennison, 1994, 2007; Hannaford, 2005). This program is based on the idea that
learning problems are caused when different sections of the brain and body do not work
together in a coordinated manner. This lack of connection blocks the ability to learn. In
an effort to overcome this learning block, this program uses a variety of simple
movements intended to improve the integration of specific brain functions and body
movements (Dennison & Dennison, 1994, 2007).
Brain Gym® is a process of re-educating the mind and body (Dennison &
Dennison, 1994, 2007). Stress, which is encountered daily, inhibits these connections
(Dennison & Dennison, 1994). Movement improves K-12 student performance and
attitudes about the learning process (Dennison & Dennison, 2007). Students gain
efficient connections across the neural pathways located throughout the brain
(Dennison & Dennison, 1994). With success, learning is easier and more efficient.
Therefore, Brain Gym® movements stimulate the flow of information along these
networks, restoring the child’s innate ability to learn and function with curiosity and joy
(Brain Gym International, 2011).
Dennison and Dennison (2007) describe human brain function in terms of three
dimensions: laterality, focus, and centering. First, the laterality dimension pertains to
the coordination between the left and right sides of the brain, especially in the midfield
where the brain’s two sides must integrate. Laterality dimension development is
necessary for reading, writing, listening, speaking, and the ability to move and think
(Dennison & Dennison, 1994, 2007). Second, the focus dimension involves the ability
to coordinate between the back and front areas of the brain (Dennison & Dennison,
1994, 2007). Focus affects comprehension, or the ability to blend context and details
into a full personal meaning and to understand new information in terms of previous
40
experiences. Such disorders as attention deficit disorder and attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder have been related to the inability to focus (U.S. Department of
Education, 2003).
The final dimension of centering is the coordination between the top and bottom
structures of the brain. Centering enables integrating emotion with rational thought.
Stress, again, can disturb centering and equilibrium (Dennison & Dennison, 1994,
2007). Brain Gym® can help mitigate the deleterious effects of general and
developmental stress and can be used to build the neuronal pathways to improve
access to each of the two hemispheres of the brain. With centering, students feel more
grounded and organized (Dennison & Dennison, 1994, 2007).
Brain Gym® is a movement-based educational experience. Its curriculum
consists of a series of movements, processes, programs, materials, and educational
philosophy purposefully used to activate the brain while promoting neurological re-
patterning and facilitating whole-brain learning (Dennison & Dennison, 1994, 2007).
Brain Gym® uses 26 simple activities representing naturally occurring movements,
usually observed during the first years of childhood as part of learning to coordinate
eyes, ears, hands, and whole bodies (Dennison & Dennison, 2007).
Five Brain Gym® movements can be used for the specific function of maximizing
student readiness for learning. The movements include the cross crawl, lazy 8s, the
thinking cap, the owl, and hook-ups. The cross crawl and the lazy 8s are midline
movements that support the cross-motor patterns that develop binocular vision, binaural
hearing, and two-handed coordination in the midfield where thoughts and movements
are organized to perform academic skills, such as reading, writing, spelling, and
arithmetic.
41
The thinking cap is an energy exercise that helps to reestablish the neural
pathways between the brain and the rest of the body. Hook-ups is part of the
deepening attitudes movements that activate the vestibular system as well as the
neocortex and prefrontal cortex. Deepening attitudes movements are designed to
return energy to the center of the body and restore electrical energy within the
reasoning centers. The owl is one component of the lengthening activities.
Lengthening activities give the brain information about where the human body is within
space and about how the body moves through space. This type of movement releases
tension and promotes a sense of readiness to participate in the activities of the present
situation or environment (Dennison & Dennison, 2007).
Brain Gym® has been endorsed by the education department of the United
Kingdom (UK). It is used in private schools throughout the US. The program has been
used in 80 countries around the globe, and the books and training manuals have been
translated into 40 languages (Dennison & Dennison, 2007; Hannaford, 2005).
Brain Gym® Studies
Numerous articles have been written concerning the use of the Brain Gym®
program (Carpenter, 2005; Dodson, 2006; Peterson, 2005). Brain Gym International
(2011) reported that a wide range of skills which include reading, writing, spelling,
mathematics, attention, memory, and fine motor and postural skills have been
measured in pilot studies of the curriculum. Although most of the published studies are
only published in the official Brain Gym® Journal, a few were published as doctoral
papers and delineate both the positive and negative effects of Brain Gym® on reading
(Hyatt, 2007; Myhra, 2009; Nussabaum, 2010; Walker, 2008).
42
Through the incorporation of Brain Gym® and Project SOL (Save Our Learners),
many teachers in various districts have seen benefits in Texas schools. Carpenter
(2005) indicated that the students who had participated in Brain Gym® demonstrated
improved reading scores on the Texas Proficiency Reading Inventory (TPRI) from the
2004-2005 school year over those who did not experience the program. English as a
second language (ESL) learners made such significant gains that they were able to exit
the ESL program (Carpenter, 2005). Other notable results using Brain Gym® include
the reduction of office referrals in pre-K classrooms, which went from 19 per month to
zero (Carpenter, 2005). Special education students who used Brain Gym® daily made
at least one year of progress toward reaching grade level performance (Carpenter,
2005). Finally, two elementary school teachers had been using Brain Gym® and
decided to use it with high school students who were failing (Carpenter, 2005). After
only three weeks of using the exercises, students went from failing to passing and were
able to pass the state standards test. Some students reported that they were able to
achieve AB honor roll status (Carpenter, 2005). No statistical results were presented.
Only qualitative findings were reported.
Peterson (2005) indicated that the reading test results of students involved in a
Brain Gym® program from both the 2001-2002 and the 2002-2003 school years
improved. Students mentored by senior citizens showed significant improvement in
reading skills. The study included 51 students in Grades K through 5 who were paired
with senior citizen mentors trained to facilitate the Brain Gym® exercises. The students
and mentors met regularly to work not only on the exercises but also on their
relationships. The measures used to determine pre and post interventions for reading
included behavior problems, self-esteem, and reports taken from parents, teachers, and
43
the students themselves. The effects of the intervention showed the students passed
the reading tests at grade level (Peterson, 2005).
Dodson (2006) used 30 Grade 4 inclusion classroom students to determine the
effects of Brain Gym®. Fifteen of the students were labeled exceptional educational
students. Of the remaining 15 students, six were in the high average learning range
meaning that they were the lowest of the high performing students. The last nine
students were in the class due to being labeled as high at-risk status. The Gates-
MacGinitie Reading Test was administered as a pretest-posttest measure for all of the
students. The reading pretest results were reported in August to range from reading
levels at Grade 1.9 to 6.8. After using the Brain Gym® exercises, the April reading
posttest results resulted in an increase in the posttest reading levels from Grade 2.4 to
10.5 (Dodson, 2006). Dodson (2006) reported that the students’ scores increased, and
that most of the students developed a love for reading.
Walker (2008) conducted a quantitative quasi-experimental nonequivalent control
group design study and examined the oral reading fluency and numeracy scores of third
grade students who participated in a classroom-based movement program. The
purpose was to determine any relationship between oral reading fluency and numeracy
scores and the five kinesthetic movements. One group of students received 10 days of
guided movement activities for 15 minutes each school day, while the control group
received regular classroom instruction each school day. Brain Gym® movements were
combined with play activities. A pretest and posttest were used to measure the third
graders’ oral reading fluency and numeracy scores (Walker, 2008). Walker found that
the movement program intervention had a statistically significant positive effect on
student achievement in literacy and numeracy.
44
Myhra (2009) determined the effect a sensory integration program had on the
academic performance of preschool students identified for receiving special education
services. Ten students ranging from 3 to 5 years old participated in the study. Findings
from the study revealed that participation in Stimulating Maturity through Accelerated
Readiness Training and Brain Gym® activities had a positive effect on the students’ fine
motor manipulation and writing, cognitive matching and counting, language naming and
comprehension, and gross motor object and body movements.
Hyatt (2007) reviewed the theoretical bases and research findings upon which
Dennison and Dennison (1994, 2007) claimed that movement activities enhance
learning. Hyatt also questioned the validity of the Brain Gym® activities being founded
on scientific research based practices. Hyatt commented that Dennison and Dennison
failed to support the Brain Gym® crawling, drawing, tracing symbols in the air, yawning,
and drinking water activities with research. Hyatt further suggested that none of the
Brain Gym® movements that supposedly facilitate academic learning actually include
the academic piece of instruction. Rather, Hyatt argued that the purpose of the Brain
Gym® movements was to get the child ready to learn.
Hyatt (2007) added that none of the movements included an assessment to
determine which of the three dimensions of the brain mentioned earlier require attention
and which movements would be more appropriate for which corresponding dimension.
Regarding neurological re-patterning, Hyatt remarked that a major foundational
assumption of Brain Gym® is based on a theory of repatterning that has been disproven
by numerous sources. Furthermore, to date, the idea of neural re-patterning has not
met the rigors of scientific research (Hyatt, 2007).
45
Hyatt (2007) criticized the flaws in the teacher’s edition of Brain Gym®. Hyatt
reviewed the published studies regarding Brain Gym® and found that only a few were
actually peer reviewed with the rest appearing only in the Brain Gym Journal. Hyatt
concluded that educators and educational training institutes must avoid using practices
and programs (such as Brain Gym®) with no substantive theoretical research base with
students in the hope of improving a learning problem. Hyatt challenged educators to
take the time to critically review instructional programs, in this case Brain Gym®, and
select only programs with sound, objective research support.
Response to Intervention (RTI)
RTI, under the umbrella of the IDEIA, requires scientifically based interventions
be used to target students’ areas of specific need when those areas become apparent.
The IDEIA (2004) encouraged states to use a process based on students’ responses to
research-based interventions to determine if the students had specific learning
disabilities and to provide additional supports. RTI is a coordinated comprehensive
multi-tier early detection, prevention, and intervention system (U.S. Department of
Education, 2007). RTI enables educators to identify students as at-risk and ensures the
reduction of inappropriate referrals to special education for low income minority students
experiencing inadequate classroom instruction.
The multi-tiered RTI model has three levels of support: (a) class-wide group
instruction in their general education setting for Tier I, (b) targeted or remedial
intervention for Tier II, and (c) intensive individual interventions for Tier III. Tier I is the
primary intervention level and can be used with all students. Highly qualified scientific
research-based instruction is used in the general education setting as part of Tier I. Tier
46
II is the secondary intervention given to students through specialized small group
instruction. Tier II identified students tend to be at-risk for academic and behavorial
problems. Tier III is the most intensive level of intervention and includes specialized
individualized instruction and targeted behavioral supports for students with intensive
needs (U.S. Department of Education, 2007). The RTI process has been integrated into
school improvement plans throughout the United States and Canada. RTI promotes
efforts to improve all students’ academic achievement (Shores, 2009). All RTI models
include progress monitoring as a critical component to pinpoint students’ specific areas
of difficulty while keeping close track of students’ progress and documenting that
underachievement has not resulted from lack of appropriate instruction.
Nussabaum (2010) evaluated the Dennison and Dennison’s (1994) Brain Gym®
movements for RTI Tier I uses with at-risk students’ academic performance measured
by TAKS Reading, TAKS Math, and BASC-II. A total of 364 East Texas students from
second through sixth grade participated in the study. Results from the study indicated
the students displayed statistically significant gains in reading and math after receiving
Brain Gym® as a Tier I RTI academic intervention. Similarly, students who received
Brain Gym® as a general education classroom management strategy demonstrated
statistically significant improvements away from maladaptive behaviors including
aggression, hyperactivity, inattention, depression, and anxiety (Nussabaum, 2010).
While there are many RTI models, states may select the RTI model deemed
most appropriate to the characteristics of the particular state. Once a state agency has
adopted criteria for determining eligibility for a learning disability, the local education
agencies must use the state adopted criteria (U.S. Department of Education, 2007). For
the purpose of this research, the state of Texas RTI model for the participating district
47
was used to target the students for participation and to ensure they experienced reading
underachievement.
Summary
As shown in Chapter 2, movement and exercise can help students attain
improved academic achievement in various content areas. Brain-based education
priniciples influence the use of kinesthetic movements outlined in the Brain Gym®
program. Brain-based movements can enhance cognitive skills and improve academic
learning as well as provide a foundation for an active lifestyle. By incorporating mind,
body, and brain-based education through movements student reading achievement can
be improved (Dennison & Dennison, 2007) and might lead to increasing the reading
achievement of Hispanic and African American third grade students. Chapter 3
provides the methodology and procedures for conducting this quasi-experimental study.
48
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
This chapter conveys information about participants, variables, measurement
instruments, research assistants (RAs), data collection procedures, and data analysis.
It also addresses the qualifications of the three research assistants and me. The
chapter ends with a summary.
Hispanic and African American students lag behind their White counterparts in
literacy achievement gap (Aud et al., 2011; National Association for the Education of
Young Children, 2011). Literacy is the key to academic success. Though making
strides, Hispanic and African American students perform below their White counterparts
(Aud et al., 2011; National Assessment of Educational Progress [NAEP], 2009; Snyder
& Dillow, 2011; TEA, 2009, 2010). This study was designed to determine if using a
series of kinesthetic movements would improve reading achievement for Grade 3
Hispanic and African American students. The research design was a quasi-
experimental pretest-posttest comparison group design (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2006). To
achieve the study’s purpose, I investigated the effects of kinesthetic movements with
the following research questions.
achievement of low socioeconomic status (SES) Hispanic and African American
third grade students?
achievement of low SES Hispanic third grade students?
achievement of low SES African-American third grade students?
49
achievement of low SES male third grade students?
achievement of low SES female third grade students?
Participants
This research project focused on Grade 3 students from four elementary schools
receiving Title I funding in an urban school district in North Texas. The sample was
selected based the criteria of SES and eligibility for receiving free or reduced-price
lunch. All four schools had similar student populations.
The district is comprised of 63,385 students of which 25,112 (40%) were
Hispanic, 15,207 (24%) African American, 18,216 (29%) White, 4,596 (7%),
Asian/Pacific Islander, and 254 (.4%) Native American. Of the total student population
for the district, 37,900 (60%) were economically disadvantaged and eligible for free or
reduced-price lunch, and 14,742 (23%) were considered limited English proficient
(LEP). For this study, only Hispanic and African American third grade students were
included.
Grade 3 participants assigned to the treatment and control groups were selected
based on placement in Tier I or Tier II of response to intervention (RTI). No Tier III third
grade students were included in the study, as they received intense one-on-one
intervention. The participants in the study from the four schools originally totaled 76.
Nine students represented attrition from the study with seven withdrawing from school
before the study ended and with two being absent on the posttest date. The final
sample included 67 participants. The participants included Hispanic (n = 48) and
50
African American (n = 19) students identified as low performing and at-risk of failure
through the RTI process. These students also received Tier I or Tier II interventions.
The four schools participating in the study were denoted as S1, S2, S3, and S4. Table
1 provides the participant frequencies by ethnicity and gender.
Table 1
S1, S2, S3, and S4 Student Demographics
School Hispanic African American Male Female
S1 10 6 8 8
S2 12 7 10 9
S3 14 2 12 4
S4 12 4 13 3
S1 had the largest population of students at 1,023, with Hispanics representing
73%, African American 22%, and White and other ethnicities 5%. Grade 3 students at
S1 numbered 99, of which 63% of the African American students met the 2010 TAKS
reading standard, and 69% of the Hispanic students met the standard. Sixty-nine
percent of the third grade students were LEP. Third grade S1 participants included 10
Hispanic students (5 males and 5 females) and 6 African American participants (3
males and 3 females).
S2’s total population was 981 students, of which 19% were African American,
Hispanic 68%, and White and other ethnicities 13%. The Grade 3 students at S2
totaled 124, of which 56% were African American. Of the 124 students, 85% were LEP.
51
Third grade S2 participants included 12 Hispanic students (7 males and 5 females) and
7 African American participants (3 males and 4 females).
S3’s total population was 865 students, of which 8% were African American, 85%
were Hispanic, and 7% were White and other ethnicities. All Grade 3 students at S3
totaled 109; 60% were African Americans who met the reading standard; and 73% of
Hispanic students met the reading standard. Additionally, 68% of the third grade
students were LEP. Third grade S3 participants included 14 Hispanic participants (10
males and 4 females), 2 African American male participants, and no African American
female participants.
S4’s total student population was 806 students, of which 12% were African
American, 78% were Hispanic, and 10% were White and other. The Grade 3 students
at S4 totaled 108; of the total, 60% of the African American students met the reading
standard with 77% of the Hispanic students meeting the reading standard. Additionally,
81% of the third grade students were LEP. Third grade S4 participants included 12
Hispanic students (9 males and 3 females), 4 African American male participants, and
no African American female participants. All the students whether in the experimental
group or control group, due to the nature of their placement in RTI, participated in
additional small group instruction as part of their regular school day instruction and not
as part of the study.
Experimental Group
Students eligible for participation met the criteria of being in third grade, at-risk,
Hispanic or African American, of low SES, and RTI-identified for either a Tier I or Tier II
level intervention. Participation was contingent on parental consent for each student.
52
Upon the receipt of parental consent forms from the eligible students, the two groups
were formed.
The research assistants and I administered a 30-day, five minutes per day series
of specifically targeted movements to the students of the experimental group. At the
time of the intervention, I held a Master’s degree as do all of the RAs. One RA holds an
earned doctorate. See Table 2 for this information.
Table 2
Research Assistants’ Demographics
Years of
RA Gender Ethnicity Content Area Experience Education Student n
A Female White Reading 18 M.Ed., Reading 16

Ed.D., Curriculum/
Instruction-Supervision
B Female Hispanic Reading 15 M.Ed., Early Childhood 19
C Female Hispanic Reading 13 M.Ed., Reading 16
D Female White Reading 27 Masters (unknown) 16
To qualify to teach Brain Gym® movements, I completed a 24-hour course in
Brain Gym® 101 taught by a certified Educational Kinesiology Foundation Brain Gym®
instructor. I provided the three research assistants one extensive four-hour training
session about the movements and the specifics of each movement prior to the onset of
the study. During this training, they practiced every aspect of the kinesthetic movement
intervention and the test administration. The RAs were given the specific times and
places during which the interventions were to take place and were provided with copies
of the pretests and posttests. The intervention was conducted at each of the four
respective schools in a standardized format. The selection of the school gym ensured
53
that the experimental group received the intervention away from the control group and
reduced the number of external validity errors influencing the study (Gall et al., 2006).
Control Group
The control group students did not receive the Brain Gym® movement
intervention but instead received the regular reading instruction by the general
education teacher. The control group was administered both the pretest and posttest.
Independent Variables
The students’ demographic variables were ethnicity, SES, and gender, and they
were selected from schools identified as the most eligible by the TEA Academic
Excellence Indicator System (AEIS; TEA, 2009). Kinesthetic Brain Gym® movements
were the only intervention used. Those movements were the cross crawl, the lazy 8s,
the thinking cap, the hook up, and the owl. These movements were performed in
sequential order. The movements are discussed below.
The cross crawl movement crosses the midline of the body as the participant
alternately moves one arm and the opposite leg then the other arm and the opposite leg
in slow movements. By touching the right elbow to the left knee the large areas of both
brain hemispheres are activated simultaneously, which facilitates balance nerve
activation across the corpus callosum. This activity makes communication between the
two hemispheres faster and more integrated, thus producing high-level thinking. When
this movement is done slowly, it requires fine motor involvement and balance which
allows the student to activate the vestibular system and the frontal lobes of the brain
consciously. This slow movement lasts for the duration of one minute followed by the
next movement, lazy 8s.
54
Lazy 8s involves holding one thumb at eye level and drawing a large 8 lying on
its side in the air in front of the face in midfield while moving counterclockwise up and
over and around and completing the 8 by moving the thumb clockwise on the right side.
This activity is done three times. Then, the student switches hands and moves that
thumb in the same pattern three times. Finally, the student holds both thumbs close
together and follows the pattern three more times. Lazy 8s establish the necessary
rhythm and flow for good hand-eye coordination. The three sections of this slow
movement are done three times each and last for one minute.
The thinking cap is done while gently “unrolling” the ears, several times from top
to bottom. The thinking cap movement is designed to wake up the whole system of
hearing mechanisms and assists with memory. The simple act of physically stimulating
the tactile receptors in the outer ear activates the ear. This movement is done very
slowly for the total time of one minute and is followed by the hook-up.
The hook-up is done while the participant crosses his or her ankles. Next, arms
are extended in front of the body while crossing one wrist (on the same side as the top
ankle) over the other, and the movements are completed by interlacing the fingers and
drawing the clasped hands up and toward the chest. The participant holds this position
for one minute while breathing slowly with eyes closed and the tip of the tongue on the
roof of the mouth. This movement is followed by the owl.
The owl requires the student to grasp the top of one shoulder with the opposite
hand and squeeze the muscle firmly. Slowly, the student turns his or her head to look
back over that shoulder and opens the chest. The student continues to squeeze the
muscle while turning his or her head to look over the other shoulder, making a “hooting”
noise while opening the chest again. The student then hoots again while dropping the
55
chin to the chest and allowing the muscles to relax. The owl is done with the same
hand positioning three or more times for a total of 30 seconds and is repeated with the
other hand squeezing the opposite shoulder and doing the same steps mentioned for a
total of 30 more seconds (Dennison & Dennison, 2007).
The total time to do the five mentioned movements with the experimental group
was five minutes per day and resulted in a total intervention time of 150 minutes during
the 30-day timeframe for the study. At the end of the daily intervention time, the
students were returned to their respective classrooms to receive daily instruction by the
classroom teacher. The control group did not receive any of the Brain Gym®
movements.
Dependent Variable
Reading raw scores for each participant in the experimental and control groups
were pretest and posttest for the released Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills
(TAKS) English and Spanish versions (TEA, 2004; see Appendices F and G for
excerpts). The TAKS test year of 2004 was chosen because the same reading
passages were available in both English and Spanish. The 2004 TAKS test
represented the last year in which the test was translated using parallel passages. The
TAKS was designed to measure the extent to which students learned and could apply
the defined knowledge and skills at each tested grade level in accordance to the state’s
curriculum requirements (TEA, 2011). TAKS reading test performance standards were
established according to the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS). The test
development process included educator input to develop items thought to be
appropriate and valid measures of the objectives, regular educator review, revisions to
56
all the proposed test items before field testing, and second educator review of data and
items after field testing.
The TAKS was used to assess students in four reading categories. The first
category is basic understanding with a total of 15 questions that tests subsets of reading
through word identification, reading in a variety of texts, reading vocabulary
development, and reading comprehension. The second category is applying knowledge
of literary elements with a total of seven questions to test subsets of reading text
structures and literary concepts. The third category is using strategies to analyze with
six total questions with subsets of reading comprehension, text structures, and literary
concepts. The fourth category is applying critical thinking skills with a total of eight
questions and subsets of reading comprehension and literary response. The test
contains 36 questions to assess four objectives that correlate with the standards for the
state of Texas. A raw score of 23 out of 36 indicates that the student meets the
standard established through the state’s TEKS. The raw scores from the released
TAKS 2004 version were used as the measure of student reading performance.
Data Collection Procedure
Prior to the commencement of the study, letters were sent to the principals of the
four participating schools requesting their consent and participation. Upon receiving
approval from the school district and the cooperating schools, I arranged a schedule for
data collection in each of the participation sites. After receiving permission to conduct
the study, the three RAs (described in the previous section) were contacted at their
respective elementary schools. The assistants were trained (as described previously)
to deliver instruction with the Brain Gym® movements program to the treatment group.
57
After the informed consents were collected, each participant was assigned an
identification number to ensure confidentiality. The participants’ identifying numbers
were placed in one container, pulled one at a time, and placed in the experimental
group to insure random selection. The participants selected by random drawing were
placed into the experimental group, and the remaining students were assigned to the
control group.
After the sample was assigned to each of the two groups using the identification
numbers, a t-chart was made with column headings labeled Control Group and
Experimental Group. Each respective RA took even numbers of strips alternating
between the two labeled columns until all had been used up. They opened the strips of
paper and wrote down the student numbers corresponding to each group. Data
collection occurred in three phases: Phase I (pre-assessment), Phase II (intervention),
Phase III (post-assessment).
Phase I: Pre-assessment
Students’ reading scores from the previous year were gathered. The third grade
RTI documentation from the universal screener identified the students as being in Tier I
or Tier II. Therefore, existing school documentation and data from AEIS report allowed
for generating the student participants. Prior to administering the pretest, permission to
conduct the study was obtained from the four participating school principals (see
Appendix A).
The administration of the TAKS reading test for all the participants in the study
was done in two sittings. The students were administered the pretest by their
corresponding RAs. The students were given as much time as they needed to
complete the test in a similar fashion as they would take the test under actual TAKS test
58
conditions. After the pretest administration, the RAs placed them in a sealed envelope,
and returned them to me for scoring and analysis. Identical testing and test processing
procedures were used for the posttest. Actual test taking times were not used for
measurement.
Phase II: Intervention
The RAs and I conducted a 30-day series of movements with the treatment
group students daily for five minutes each school day. The five-minute sessions
consisted of the five Brain Gym® (or kinesthetic) movements described earlier and were
conducted by pulling out the experimental group of students at the beginning of the
school day and engaging them in the Brain Gym® movements in their respective school
gymnasiums. Each of the four schools had a different amount of students for the Brain
Gym® movement pull-out sessions. The intervention did not interfere with regular daily
content instruction, as specified by participating principals.
Participants received the intervention at a pull-out session at the beginning of the
school day after morning announcements were made at each of the four schools. The
intervention was administered from 8:20 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. The period allowed the
intervention to take place and travel time between the classroom and the school gym.
Each intervention session lasted approximately five minutes and totaled 150 minutes of
intervention over the 30-day intervention period. Each of the five movements was
performed for about one minute at the pull-out sessions.
During the daily five-minute sessions, the RAs and I observed students’ practice
of the Brain Gym® movements and corrected any deviations from the Brain Gym®
movement protocol until the movements were mastered (Dennison & Dennison, 1994).
There is no set standard in the research protocol that determines the number,
59
combination, duration, or frequency of the kinesthetic movements necessary when used
for research purposes (Dennison & Dennison, 1994). Dennison and Dennison (2004)
reported that researchers would be free to determine the number and frequency of
Brain Gym® movements to use. However, Dennison and Dennison specified how each
movement might enhance individual ability. Researchers were also free to select the
Brain Gym® movement that seemed most useful for research purposes. For this study,
participating principals were concerned that instructional time would be compromised,
which became the determining factor for restricting the movements to five minutes daily.
Phase III: Post-assessment
Upon the completion of the 30-day intervention, the RAs and I administered the
posttest assessment to the experimental and control groups. The entire TAKS reading
test was used in both the pretest and the posttest assessment. (See Appendices F and
G for excerpts.) The types of questions following each passage were comprehensive in
nature.
Data Analysis
A series of mixed between-within subjects analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests
were used to control for the problem of obtaining different pretest scores (Pallant, 2007).
The pretest-posttest design required awareness of pre-existing differences between the
experimental and control groups, particularly in the case of each student having an
equal chance of being randomly selected for the treatment group (Castillo, 2009). In the
mixed between-within subjects ANOVA, the change from pretest to posttest within the
control group and the change from pretest to posttest within the treatment group
60
(analyzed via the time by condition effect) were compared to each other. Because of
the intervention, I controlled for students’ SES and ethnicity conditions between groups.
The chi-square (χ2) procedure was used to analyze the distributions of the
independent variables (gender, ethnicity, SES, program, school, and condition) before
conducting the statistical tests regarding the research questions. The mixed between-
within subjects ANOVA was used to determine differences between students’ pre-
posttest scores (Pallant, 2007). To determine statistical significance, the apriori α value
has to be less than .05.
Assumption Check for Normality
I evaluated the normality of the dependent variable (TAKS reading scores) using
the histogram, skewness statistic, and kurtosis statistic. The dependent variable of the
raw TAKS reading score was assessed for normality based on the rule of thumb by
Hair, Tatum, and Anderson (2009) in which the normality of an interval variable is
evaluated based on the standardized z scores for skewness and kurtosis and could be
Skewness Kurtosis
Z skewness = Z kurtosis =
6 24
expressed in the formulas of N and N in which N is the
sample size. If the calculated

Z skewness and
Z kurtosis were in the range of ±1.96, the
data were normally distributed at the .05 level, or if the calculated

Z skewness and
Z kurtosis were in the range of ±2.58, the data were normally distributed at the .01 level.
As the sample size in the present study was relatively small, I used the less liberal
±2.58 criterion.
61
Summary
I addressed the effects of kinesthetic movement intervention as a possible
intervention for increasing Hispanic and African American third grade students’ reading
achievement. The dependent variable was represented through the students’ scores on
the TAKS reading pretest and posttest. The 2 x 2 mixed between-within subjects
ANOVAs were used to determine differences between students’ pretest and posttest
reading achievement scores. The intervention for this study consisted of a 30-day
series of kinesthetic (Brain Gym®) movements conducted for five minutes a school day
in a slow and deliberate manner with a treatment group of Grade 3 students. Students
(n = 67) in four public elementary schools from a large urban, Texas independent school
district participated in the 30-day quasi-experimental study. Four highly trained
interventionists helped implement the daily intervention.
62
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
The purpose of the quasi-experimental study was to determine if using a series
of kinesthetic movements improves the reading achievement of Grade 3 Hispanic and
African American students. I derived the dependent variable data for each participant in
the experimental and control groups from pretest and posttest raw scores for the
released version of the 2004 Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS)
English and Spanish reading (TEA, 2004). I chose the 2004 TAKS reading test
because the same reading passages were available in both English and Spanish. The
2004 TAKS test represented the last year in which the test was translated using parallel
passages. To obtain statistical significance for any test used for analyzing the data, the
apriori α value required the obtained p value to be smaller than .05. This chapter
addresses the descriptive analysis, preliminary screening procedures, descriptive
statistics, and the research question results.
Preliminary Screening Procedures
All of the participants in the study were third grade students from low
socioeconomic status (SES) meaning they either received free or reduced lunch at
school. The students’ demographic variables were ethnicity (African American and
Hispanic), SES, and gender (male and female).
Missing Value Patterns
Initially, 76 participants were recruited to participate in the study. Two
participants moved, four withdrew, two missed the pretest, and one missed the posttest.
The attrition resulted in 67 participants.
63
The cross tabulation with chi-square (χ2) procedures was used to determine
whether the nonparticipating students and participants with missing data were
significantly different from the participants with complete data. Table 3 reveals that
nonparticipating students and participants with missing data were not significantly
different in terms of gender, ethnicity, SES, program, school, and experimental versus
control group status (a.k.a., condition). Therefore, the groups were treated as
equivalent.
Table 3
Pearson χ2 Results for the Cross Tabulations Comparing Between Incomplete and
Complete Participant Data (n = 76)
Variable χ2 df p
Gender 1.98 1 .159
Ethnicity 1.65 1 .199
SES 1.93 1 .165
Program 2.28 2 .319
School 5.21 3 .157
Condition 2.48 1 .115
64
Checking for Univariate Normality
According to Kline (2005), skew indices (i.e., skewness statistic with standard
error [SE]) above 2.58 indicate non-normality. (For detailed explanation, see data
analysis section of Chapter 3.) Kurtosis indices (i.e., kurtosis statistic with SE) between
10 and 20 also indicate non-normality. As seen in Table 4, none of the variables were
remarkably skewed, and none showed high kurtosis indices.
Table 4
Skewness and Kurtosis Statistics for the Dependent Variables (n = 67)
Variable Skewness Kurtosis
Pretest Score .80 .08
Posttest Score .39 -.58

Note. SE for skewness statistic = .29. SE for kurtosis statistic = .58.
Univariate normality was confirmed by visually inspecting the histograms.
Additionally, no evidence of outliers in the distribution of scores was observed when
reviewing the histograms. I judged both the pretest and posttest distributions to be
normal. Figures 1 and 2 depict the distributions for the pretest and posttest scores.
65
Figure 1. Score distribution for pretest total score.
Figure 2. Score distribution for posttest total score.
66
Descriptive Statistics
All variables included in the data were described with frequency of occurrence
and measures of central tendency and dispersion (mean and standard deviation) as
appropriate for the variable. The demographic variables are presented first and
followed by the descriptive statistics for the dependent variable.
Demographic Variables
The demographic variables included the four schools (S1, S2, S3, and S4) and
the participating students’ characteristics.
Schools. As shown in Table 5, a slightly greater percentage of the control group
participants were from S2. A slightly smaller percentage of the control participants were
from S4. The percentage of participants in the experimental group was similar across
schools.
Table 5
Frequencies of Control and Experimental Group Participation by School (n = 67)
Control (n = 31) Experimental (n = 36)
School n % n %
S1 8 25.8 8 22.2
S2 10 32.3 9 25.0
S3 7 22.6 9 25.0
S4 6 19.4 10 27.8
Students. The frequencies and percentages for the demographic variables within
gender are displayed in Table 6. More females (65.2%) than males participated. There
67
were more Hispanic females (70.8%) and males (72.1%) than African American males
and females. In addition, more males were in the ESL program (44.2%) than in the
bilingual (27.9%) and regular (27.9%) programs. More females were in the regular
program (29.2%) than in the bilingual (20.0%) and ESL (20.8%) programs. More males
(74.4%) than females (70.8%) received free lunch. Fewer males were from S1 (18.6%)
than from the other three schools, and fewer females were from S4 (12.5%) than from
the other three schools. More females (58.3%) were in the experimental than in the
control group. Fewer males passed the TAKS (41.9%) than did not pass the TAKS
(46.5%); however, more females passed the TAKS (62.5%) than did not pass the TAKS
(25.0%). Females experienced slightly fewer interventions (24) than males (43).
Research Questions
To answer the five research questions, I conducted a 2 x 2 mixed between-within
subjects analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare pretest and posttest
scores (i.e., between and within subjects; Pallant, 2007). The between-subjects
variable was represented by the intervention (i.e., experimental vs. control group). The
within-subjects variable was time (i.e., pretest vs. posttest score). In the mixed
between-within subjects ANOVA, the change from pretest to posttest within the control
group and the treatment group (analyzed via the time by condition effect) are compared
to each other.
68
Table 6
Frequencies and Percentages for the Students’ Demographic Variables (n = 67)
Male Female
Variable n % n %
Ethnicity
Hispanic 31 72.1 17 70.8
African American 12 27.9 7 29.2
Program
Bilingual 12 27.9 12 20.0
ESL 19 44.2 5 20.8
Regular 12 27.9 7 29.2
SES
Free Lunch 32 74.4 17 70.8
Reduced Lunch 11 25.6 7 29.2
School
S1 8 18.6 8 33.3
S2 10 23.3 9 37.5
S3 12 27.9 4 16.7
S4 13 30.2 3 12.5
Condition
Control 21 48.8 10 41.7
Experimental 22 51.2 14 58.3
TAKS Status
Did Not Pass 20 46.5 6 25.0
No Score 2 4.7 2 8.3
Passed 18 41.9 15 62.5
Commended 3 7.0 1 4.2
Total Interventions
1 24 55.8 12 40.0
2 17 39.5 8 33.3
3 2 4.7 4 16.7
69
Descriptive Statistics for the Dependent Variable
Table 7 presents the means and standard deviations for the pretest and posttest
scores.
Table 7
Descriptive Statistics for the Dependent Variable (n = 67)
Pretest Posttest
Variable Range M SD Range M SD
Total Score 6 - 31 14.97 5.99 5 - 33 18.03 6.99
Research Question 1
The first research question was: To what extent, if any, do kinesthetic
movements increase the reading achievement of low SES Hispanic and African
American third grade students? I analyzed data from pre and posttests to determine if
there were significant differences were tested in reading achievement test scores
between low SES Hispanic and African American third grade students experiencing the
kinesthetic movements versus the control group. I conducted the 2 x 2 mixed between-
within subjects ANOVA procedure. The between subjects variable was the intervention
(i.e., experimental vs. control group). The within subjects variable was time which was
what both groups had in common between the pretest and posttest administrations
(Pallant, 2007).
Assumptions. The assumption of equality of variance for the pretest means was
fulfilled, F (1, 65) = .55, p = .460. Similarly, the assumption of equality of variance for
the posttest means was fulfilled, F (1, 65) = .03, p = .862. In addition, the assumption of
70
equality of covariances was fulfilled, F (3, 3029786) = .13, p = .945. The variables met
all the assumptions necessary for the between-within subjects ANOVA.
Results. The means for the pretest and posttest total scores between the control
and experimental groups are displayed in Table 8. The mixed between-within subjects
ANOVA findings in Table 9 revealed that reading achievement scores increased across
time, within the participant groups F (1, 65) = 19.52, p = .001. The change in reading
achievement scores across time did not differ significantly between the control and
experimental groups, F (1, 65) = .48, p = .491, from the pretest to the posttest.
Table 8
Means and Standard Deviations for Reading Achievement Across Time as a Function of
the Brain Gym® Intervention
Pretest Posttest
Group M SD M SD Mean Difference
Control 14.35 5.69 17.94 6.92 3.59

Experimental 15.50 6.28 18.11 7.15 2.61
Table 9
Mixed Between-within Subjects ANOVA Results for Reading Achievement

Across Time as a Function of the Intervention (n = 67)
Source df F p
Between Subjects
Condition 1 .21 .649
Error 65
Within Subjects
Time 1 19.52 .000*
Time x Condition 1 .48 .491
Error 65
Note. * Denotes significance at less than the .01 level.
71
Research Question 2
The second research question was: To what extent, if any do kinesthetic
movements increase the reading achievement of low SES Hispanic third grade
students? I analyzed data from pre and posttests to determine if there were significant
differences in reading achievement test scores between low SES Hispanic third grade
students who experienced the kinesthetic movements versus the control group. I
conducted a 2 x 2 mixed between-within subjects ANOVA procedure. The between
subjects variable was the intervention (i.e., experimental vs. control group). The within
subjects variable was time which was what both groups had in common between the
pretest and posttest administrations (Pallant, 2007).
equality of covariances was fulfilled, F (3, 499628) = .10, p = .962. The variables met all
assumptions necessary for the between-within subjects ANOVA.
Results. The mixed between-within subjects ANOVA findings in Table 11 shows
the reading achievement pretest and posttest scores increased across time (F (1, 46) =
14.33, p = .001). The change in reading achievement scores across time approached
statistical significance between the control and experimental groups but did not achieve
it (F (1, 46) = 3.14, p = .083). An increase from pretest to posttest was indicated for
both the control and experimental groups across time. As shown in Table 10, reading
achievement scores improved within the control group from pretest (M = 14.43, SD =
6.13) to posttest (M = 18.52, SD = 7.23). Reading achievement scores were similar
within the experimental group from pretest (M = 17.36, SD = 6.31) to posttest (M =
72
18.84, SD = 7.55). However, the pattern of scores indicated that the kinesthetic
movement intervention did not improve reading achievement scores on the released
2004 TAKS test. Instead, students who were not exposed to the intervention (i.e., the
students in the control group) improved at the same rate as the experimental group.
Therefore, the intervention did not result in higher reading achievement scores for
Hispanic third grade students.
73
Table 10
the Brain Gym® Intervention Within the Hispanic Sample
Pretest Posttest
Group M SD M SD
Mean Difference
Control 14.43 6.13 18.52 7.23 4.09
Experimental 17.36 6.31 18.84 7.55 1.48
Table 11
Mixed Between-within Subjects ANOVA Results for Reading Achievement Across Time
as a Function of the Brain Gym® Intervention Within the Hispanic Sample (n = 48)
Source df F p
Between Subjects
Error 46
Within Subjects
Time 1 14.33 .000*
Time x Condition 1 3.14 .083
Error 46
The means for the pretest and posttest total scores of the control and
experimental groups consisting of Hispanic students are shown in Figure 3. The pretest
and posttest lines for the two groups’ scores were not parallel. This observation
suggested the possibility of interaction, even though the statistical results depicted
none.
74
20
19
Mean Reading Achievement Score
18
17
16
15
14
13 Control
12
11 Experimental
10
Pretest Posttest
Time
Figure 3. Mean reading achievement scores across time were higher for the control
group than for the experimental group.
Research Question 3
The third research question was: To what extent, if any, do kinesthetic
movements increase the reading achievement of low SES African American third grade
students? I analyzed data from pre and posttests to determine if there were significant
differences in reading achievement test scores between low SES African American third
grade students who experienced the kinesthetic movements versus the control group. I
conducted a 2 x 2 mixed between-within subjects ANOVA procedure. The between
subjects variable was the intervention (i.e., experimental vs. control group). The within
subjects variable was time which was what both groups had in common between the
pretest and posttest administrations (Pallant, 2007).
75
assumptions necessary for the between-with subjects ANOVA.
Results. The means for the pretest and posttest scores between the control and
experimental groups consisting of only the African American students are presented in
Table 12. The mixed between-within subjects ANOVA findings in Table 13 revealed
that reading achievement test scores increased across time, F (1, 17) = 5.21, p = .036.
This finding was significant since the obtained p = .036 was greater than the apriori α <
.05. The change in reading achievement scores across time did not differ significantly
between control and experimental groups, F (1, 17) = .91, p = .353. The kinesthetic
movements did not result in an increase the reading achievement scores of African
American third grade students.
Table 12
the Brain Gym® Intervention Within the African American Sample
Pretest Posttest
Control 14.35 5.69 17.94 6.92 3.59
Experimental 15.50 6.28 18.11 7.15 2.61
76
Table 13
as a Function of the Brain Gym® Intervention Within the African American Sample (n =
19)
Source df F p
Between Subjects
Error 17
Within Subjects
Time 1 5.21 .036*
Error 17
Research Question 4
The fourth research question was: To what extent, if any, do kinesthetic
movements increase the reading achievement of low SES male third grade students? I
analyzed data from pre and posttests to determine if there were significant differences
in reading achievement test scores between low SES male third grade students who
experienced the kinesthetic movements versus the control group. I conducted a 2 x 2
mixed between-within subjects ANOVA procedure. The between subjects variable was
the intervention (i.e., experimental vs. control group). The within subjects variable was
time which was what both groups had in common between the pretest and posttest
administrations (Pallant, 2007).
77
the assumptions necessary for the between-within subjects ANOVA.
Results. The means for the pretest and posttest scores between the control and
experimental groups for only the male students are presented in Table 14. The mixed
between-within subjects ANOVA findings in Table 15 revealed that reading achievement
scores increased across time, F (1, 41) = 9.89, p = .003. The change in reading
achievement scores across time did not differ significantly between the control and
experimental groups, F (1, 41) = .00, p = .982. Therefore, the kinesthetic movements
did not result in increased reading achievement scores for the male third grade
students.
Table 14
the Brain Gym® Intervention Within the Sample of Males
Pretest Posttest
Control 14.67 6.27 17.71 8.10 3.04
Experimental 14.41 6.51 17.50 8.04 3.09
78
Table 15
as a Function of the Brain Gym® Intervention Within the Sample of Males (n = 43)
Source df F p
Between Subjects
Error 41
Within Subjects
Time 1 9.89 .003*
Error 41
Research Question 5
The fifth research question was: To what extent, if any, do kinesthetic
movements increase the reading achievement of low SES female third grade students?
I analyzed data from pre and posttests to determine if there were significant differences
in reading achievement test scores of low SES female third grade students who
experienced the kinesthetic movement treatment versus the control group. I conducted
a 2 x 2 mixed between-within subjects ANOVA procedure. The between subjects
variable was the intervention (i.e., experimental vs. control group). The within subjects
variable was time which was what both groups have in common between the pretest
and posttest administrations (Pallant, 2007).
79
equality of covariances was fulfilled, F (3, 25756) = 1.50, p = .214. The variables met all
assumptions necessary for the between-within subjects ANOVA.
Results. The means and standard deviations for the pretest and posttest scores
between the control and experimental groups consisted of only females and are
presented in Table 16. The mixed between-within subjects ANOVA findings in Table 17
revealed that reading achievement scores increased across time, F (1, 22) = 13.27, p =
.001. The change in reading achievement scores across time did not differ significantly
between control and experimental groups, F (1, 22) = 2.49, p = .129. Therefore, the
kinesthetic movements did not result in the reading achievement scores of female third
grade students.
Table 16
the Brain Gym® Intervention Within the Sample of Females
Pretest Posttest
Control 13.70 4.45 18.40 3.66 4.70
Experimental 17.21 5.69 19.07 5.64 1.86
80
Table 17
as a Function of the Brain Gym® Intervention Within the Sample of Females (n = 24)
Source df F p
Between Subjects
Condition 1 1.22 .282
Error 22
Within Subjects
Time 1 13.27 .001*
Error 22
Note. * indicates significance at .01 level.
81
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary and Discussion
The purpose of the quasi-experimental study was to determine if using a series
of kinesthetic movements improves the reading achievement of Grade 3 Hispanic and
African American students. One brain-based kinesthetic movement strategy is Brain
Gym®, a registered trademark by Brain Gym International/Educational Kinesiology
Foundation. It offers a series of 26 kinesthetic movements that are purported to help
school-age students in reading, writing, and mathematics (Dennison & Dennison, 2007;
Hannaford, 2005). This study included the use of five of the Brain Gym® kinesthetic
movements, the Cross Crawl, Lazy 8s, Thinking Cap, Hook-ups, and Owl. The pretest-
posttest research design allowed for gathering data regarding male and female Hispanic
and African American Grade 3 students who were at-risk and from low SES status from
a large urban North Texas School District. The students’ ethnicities, socioeconomic
status (SES), gender, and scores from a released 2004 TAKS Reading test represented
the variables investigated. All analyses were conducted with the 2 x 2 mixed between-
within subjects analysis of variance (ANOVA) to determine significant differences
between the means of the pretest and posttest scores. Each research question was
addressed separately.
Research Question 1
The first research question was: To what extent, if any, do kinesthetic
movements increase the reading achievement of low SES Hispanic and African
American third grade students? Data revealed that the means from the pretest and
82
posttest reading achievement scores of all participating Hispanic and African American
students increased across time (p = .001). However, the reading scores did not differ
significantly (p = .491) between the control and experimental groups. These findings
indicated that kinesthetic movements did not help improve student reading
achievement.
Research Question 2
The second research question was: To what extent, if any do kinesthetic
movements increase the reading achievement of low SES Hispanic third grade
students? Data revealed that the pretest and posttest scores for all Hispanic students
increased (p = .001) across time. The reading scores showed no difference from the
control and experimental groups across time and condition (p = .083) for Hispanic
students. Reading achievement did improve within the control group, and the reading
scores were similar with the experimental group. Kinesthetic movements did not help
increase reading scores and failed to represent a good intervention to use due to the
findings.
Research Question 3
The third research question was: To what extent, if any, do kinesthetic
movements increase the reading achievement of low SES African American third grade
students? Data revealed that using the kinesthetic intervention did not differ
significantly (p = .353) from pretest to posttest across time between the control and
experimental groups. While reading achievement did increase across time (p = .036)
for all African American students, the intervention did not yield significant changes. The
implication of this finding for educators is that kinesthetic movements do not represent a
viable solution for improving student reading achievement.
83
Research Question 4
The fourth research question was: To what extent, if any, do kinesthetic
movements increase the reading achievement of low SES male third grade students?
The finding showed that the reading achievement did increase across time (p = .003) for
all male students. However, the change did not differ significantly (p = .982) between
the control and experimental groups for the male third grade students. This finding
indicates that kinesthetic movements do not represent a good intervention for increasing
student reading achievement.
Research Question 5
The fifth research question was: To what extent, if any, do kinesthetic
movements increase the reading achievement of low SES female third grade students?
As with the previous four research questions, the data from this analysis revealed that
reading scores increased across time (p = .001) for all female students. The change did
not differ significantly (p = .129) between the control and experimental groups for the
female third grade students.
Discussion of the Findings
The academic achievement emphasis in 21st century education demands that
students be taught how to read and how to develop high levels of reading achievement
(No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 [NCLB], 2002). However, at-risk minorities,
especially Hispanic and African American students, continue to lag behind their White
counterparts in reading, and the achievement gap continues (MacDonald & Figueredo,
2010; Mandara, 2009; National Assessment of Educational Progress [NAEP], 2011;
Short et al., 2008; Walker-Dalhouse & Risko, 2009). This gap creates national interest
from school district leaders and teachers who find themselves trying to teach students
84
with learning difficulties how to read (Deshler & Hock, 2009; Goodwin & Ahn, 2010;
Pinnell & Fountas, 2009). Students who struggle with reading problems are easily
identifiable through response to intervention (RTI). In an effort to raise achievement
scores, the RTI process has been integrated into school improvement plans throughout
the United States and Canada (Shores, 2009). Students with reading difficulties are
then placed into the three tier intervention system, and specific plans are created to
address the needs of the identified student.
In the search to prevent and improve reading difficulties, brain-based education
has encouraged educators to find kinesthetic means to help students learn to read
(Jensen, 2010; Pinnell & Fountas, 2009). Movement and exercise have been reported
to positively impact learning, mainly in girls (Carlson et al., 2008). Chomitz et al. (2009)
found a relationship between physical fitness and academic achievement. Dills et al.
(2011) echoed the effect that increasing time in recess or in physical education class
increased students’ reading scores. Goodway and Branta (2003) reported on the
benefits of motor skill intervention with disadvantaged preschool students. Robinson
and Goodway (2009) reported similar results with disadvantaged preschool age African
American students. Movement seemed to be the key to academic achievement. With
these studies in mind, I conducted this quasi-experimental study. Even though the
students’ reading scores increased over time, there was no difference found between
the two group scores. The intervention appeared to have no effect on reading
achievement.
The results of this study did not support the findings of the other studies of the
effectiveness of kinesthetic activities in helping children learn to read (Carpenter, 2005;
Dodson, 2006; Myhra, 2009; Nussabaum, 2010; Peterson, 2005; Walker, 2008). Hyatt
85
(2007) reviewed studies using Brain Gym® movements in a learning environment and
did not find any significance, even though the Brain Gym® program developers
Dennison and Dennison (2007) have claimed its effectiveness with students
experiencing particular challenges, such as ADHD, dyslexia, special needs, attention
disorders, stress, and behaviors. Hyatt (2007) warned educators to avoid using
practices and programs, such as Brain Gym®, with no substantive theoretical research
base in the hope of improving a learning problem.
Research on the positive benefits of exercise and physical activity on academic
achievement led me to believe in a greater relationship between cognition and physical
activity. Results of the study indicate that although students made reading achievement
gains, the gains were not statistically significant as measured by the 2004 TAKS
reading assessment. However, instead of using slow and deliberate movements, I
recommend implementing vigorous exercise that lasts longer than five minutes to help
stimulate students’ brains. A longer intervention period, over a longer period of time
may have yielded different results as in studies from Myhra (2009), Nussabaum (2010),
and Walker (2008). Furthermore, the released 2004 TAKS instrument may not have
been sensitive enough to measure changes and should have been used in conjunction
with other interventions. The findings of this study might conflict with other researchers’
findings due to its limitations, which are dicussed in the next section.
Contributions and Limitations
A strength of this study was the research design. This design was quasi-
experimental and represented an effort to improve RTI within the school setting. The
findings add to the body of literature (see Myhra, 2009; Nussabaum, 2010; Walker,
86
2008) concerning Brain Gym® and RTI as opposed to the studies found only in the Brain
Gym® Journal. I had theorized that the group engaging in Brain Gym® movements
would demonstrate higher reading academic achievement as compared to the control
group. Given the results of this study, Brain Gym® movements did not show significant
improvement as a movement oriented brain based strategy for increasing student
reading achievement.
The findings of this study limit generalizations from the data. The Brain Gym®
movements were used five minutes, once a day for a period of 30 days. Perhaps, due
to time constraints from the participating schools, not enough of the Brain Gym®
movements were used each day, and the five movements might need to be combined
with other reading interventions. Five minutes of movement daily was too limiting. A
longer period of intervention such as a full semester might yield the positive results seen
in other studies.
In addition, the reading assessment instrument might not have been sensitive
enough to measure changes from pretest to posttest for such a short-term intervention.
Another limitation may be that the movements from the Brain Gym® program do not
meet the criteria of evidence-based practice for use with RTI and thus do not lead to
increases in reading achievement scores. These findings and limitations lead to the
following recommendations for practice and research and a conclusion for the study.
Implications
In the large urban district, the low SES third grade African American and
Hispanic students in this research struggled with low reading achievement. However,
they did not show significant gains in reading achievement despite the daily use of the
87
five Brain Gym® movements. The Brain Gym® movements did not appear to be an
effective intervention to help close the reading achievement gap for the low SES third
grade African American and Hispanic students.
The following represent what I view as implications for school districts that
consider activity-based interventions to increase school achievement:
• Short periods of time using deliberate and slow physical movement may not
improve reading achievement and may not be appropriate for use with public
school students.
• More daily PE which involves vigorous activity to energize the students and
activate brain functioning needs to be implemented in schools.
• The initial cost involved in training instructors for programs such as Brain
Gym® can be somewhat expensive. School districts should look to their
personnel for designing district specific vigorous activity interventions.
The following represent the implications for future researchers:
• A kinesthetic movement intervention study with a longer period of time
dedicated to daily intervention that includes more vigorous physical activity may
be necessary.
• Longitudinal studies to discern the long term outcomes of using kinesthetic
movements over lengthier intervention periods and using more movements are
needed.
• Studies using combinations of physical interventions and evidence-based
reading interventions to study reading achievement may provide practices that
are more effective.
88
APPENDIX A
INTRODUCTORY LETTER TO PRINCIPALS
89
To: Principal
XXXX Elementary
Dear Mr. Perales,
My name is Edelmira Sánchez a doctoral student at the University of North Texas,
Denton Texas; Department of Teacher Education and Administration. At the present
time I am in the midst of writing my proposal for dissertation requirements. My research
is on kinesthetic movements specifically taken from a program known as the
Educational Kinesiology Foundation/Brain Gym® International that was developed by
Dr. Paul and Gail Dennison.
The research study is targeting students with low academic achievement in Reading,
from five elementary schools in the Arlington Independent School District. The purpose
of my study is to determine the effectiveness of using five movements daily for a period
of 70 days, from the above mentioned program in reading achievement.
I am looking at working with 100 students, 20 each from the five area schools, which
would include 10 students in a control group and 10 in the experimental group. The
study is to take place from September to December 2010. Released TAKS tests will
serve as the pre and posttests. At your campus I am requesting help from Dr. Jan
Cowman, one of your instructional facilitators, in order to gather data for the study.
Thereby, the reason for writing this letter is ask for your participation in my research
study. If you so choose to do so, permission from Dr. Carter is in process.
I await your prompt response, as your participation would become an integral part of my
proposal process.
Sincerely,
Edelmira Sánchez
Instructional Facilitator Major Professor:
XXX Elementary George Morrison
2900 XXXXXXXX XX University of North Texas
XXXX, Texas 7XXXX Department of Teacher Education and
Administration
[email protected] [email protected]
90
APPENDIX B
INTRODUCTORY LETTER TO PARENTS: ENGLISH
91
Dear Parent/Guardian of _________________________________________________________,
Please allow me to introduce myself, my name is Edelmira Sánchez and I am a doctoral student
at the University of North Texas, Denton Texas; Department of Teacher Education and
Administration. I am conducting research on kinesthetic (learning/exploring) movements
(exercises), specifically five types of movements daily over a period of 40 days and its result on
reading achievement.* Your child is being asked to participate as part of this campus. Half of
the children who participate will have a chance of doing the exercises and the other half will not
do them. The estimated daily time for each student is to be five minutes of exercises after
morning announcements. Student participation is from October until November, 2010. At the
end of this trial period there I will be available to explain to the parent/guardian of the
participants from the control group your child’s reading improvements and answer any questions
you may have.
A permission form with more detail is being included with this letter. Thank you for your
consideration of this endeavor to assist improving one of your child’s most valuable assets in
life….reading!
Sincerely,
Edelmira Sánchez
Instructional Facilitator/Key Investigator Major Professor/Principal Investigator
Morton Elementary George Morrison
2900 Barrington Place University of North Texas
Arlington, Texas 76014 Department of Teacher Education and Administration
*The idea being researched with the students is taken from a program known as the Educational Kinesiology
Foundation/Brain Gym® International developed by Dr. Paul and Gail Dennison.
92
APPENDIX C
INTRODUCTORY LETTER TO PARENTS: SPANISH
93
Estimado Padre/guardián de ______________________________________________________.
Mi nombre es Edelmira Sánchez. Soy una estudiante trabajando en mi doctorado en la
Universidad de North Texas; Departamento de Educación para Maestros e Administración. Al
presente estoy escribiendo la propuesta para los requisitos de tesina.
El estudio es en específicamente cinco movimientos (ejercicios), que serán conducidos diario por
40 días y los resultados en la academia de lectura.* Se le está pidiendo permiso para que su
niño/a participe como parte de esta escuela. La mitad de niños que serán voluntarios, harán los
movimientos y la otra mitad no los harán.
El tiempo estimado para hacer los movimientos diarios es cinco minutos después de los
anuncios del día. Su participación será de octubre hasta noviembre del 2010. Al final del estudio
estaré disponible para explicarle a los padres/guardianes del grupo controlado los resultados y
contestar preguntas que tenga.
Una forma para su permiso y con más detalles es incluida con esta carta.
Sinceramente,
Edelmira Sánchez
Instructional Facilitator/Key Personnel Major Professor/Principal Investigator:
Morton Elementary George Morrison
2900 Barrington Place University of North Texas
Arlington, Texas 76014 Department of Teacher Education and
Administration
*La idea para el estudio es basada sobre un programa conocido como Educacional Kinesiología
Fundación/Brain Gym® International fundado por el Dr. Paul and Gail Dennison.
94
APPENDIX D
APPROVED INFORMED CONSENT AND ASSENT: ENGLISH
95
96
97
98
APPENDIX E
APPROVED INFORMED CONSENT AND ASSENT: SPANISH
99
100
101
102
APPENDIX F
EXCERPT OF ENGLISH VERSION OF TAKS READING ASSESSMENT
FOR GRADE 3
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
APPENDIX G
EXCERPT OF SPANISH VERSION OF TAKS READING ASSESSMENT
FOR GRADE 3
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
REFERENCES
Al Otaiba, S., Petscher, Y., Pappamihiel, N. E., Williams, R. S., Dyrlund, A. K., &
Connor, C. (2009). Model oral reading fluency development in Latino students: A
longitudinal study across second and third grade. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 101, 315-329.
Alferink, A. A., & Farmer-Dougan, V. (2010). Brain (not) based education: Dangers of
misunderstanding and misapplication of neuroscience research. Exceptionality,
18, 42-52.
Allington, R. L. (2009). What really matters in response to intervention: Research-based

designs. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-5 (2009).
Aud, S., Hussar, W., Kena, G., Bianco, K., Frohlich, L., Kemp, J., & Tahan, K. (2011).
The condition of education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics.
Blackowicz, C. L. Z., Buhle, R., Ogle, D., Frost, S., Correa, A., & Kinner, J. D. (2010).
Hit the ground running: Ten ideas for preparing and supporting urban literacy
coaches. Reading Teacher, 63, 348-359.
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, Handbook 1: The cognitive

domain. New YorK, NY: David McKay.
Bobo, L. (2009). Crime, urban poverty, and social science. Du Bois Review, 6, 273-278.
Boscardin, C. M., Muthen, B., Francis, D. J., & Backer, E. L. (2008). Early identification
of reading difficulties using heterogeneous developmental trajectories. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 100, 192-208. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.192
Brain Gym International. (2011). About us. Retrieved from http://braingym.org/history
Brayboy, B. M., Castagno, A. E., & Maughan, E. (2007). Equality and justice for all?
Examining race in education scholarship. Review of Research in Education, 31,
159-194.
Brown, S. (2009). Learning to read: Learning disabled post-secondary students talk

back to special education. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in
Education, 22, 85-98. doi:10.1080/09518390802581943
Brown, S., & Parsons, L. (2008). So you think you can dance? Pet scans reveal your
brain's inner choreography. Scientific American, 299. Retrieved from
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-neuroscience-of-dance
117
Cain, R. C., Caine, J., McClintic, C. L., & Klimek, K. J. (Eds.). (2008). 12 brain/mind
learning principles in action: Developing executive functions of the human brain
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Carlson, S. A., Fulton, J. E., Lee, S. M., Maynard, L. M., Brown, D. R., Kohl, H. W., III, &
Dietz, W. H. (2008). Physical education and academic achievement in
elementary school: Data from the early childhood longitudinal study. American
Journal of Public Health, 98, 721-727. Retrieved from
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/loi/ajph
Carpenter, C. (2005). Planting brain gym seeds. Brain Gym Journal, 19, 83-92.
Castelli, D. M., Hillman, C. H., Buck, S. M., & Erwin, H. E. (2007). Physical fitness and
and academic achievement in third- and fifth-grade students. Journal of Sport
and Exercise Psychology, 29, 239-252.
Castillo, J. J. (2009). Random sampling. Retrieved from http://www.experiment-

resources.com/simple-random-sampling.html
Chard, D. J., Stoolmiller, M., Harn, B. A., Wanzek, J., Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S.,
& Kame'enui, E. J. (2008). Prediction reading success in a mulitlevel schoolwide
reading model: A retrospective analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 174-
188.
Chomitz, V. R., Slining, M. M., McGowan, R. J., Mitchell, S. E., Dawson, G. F., &
Hacker, K. A. (2009). Is there a relationship between physical fitness and
academic achievement? Positive results from public school in chidlren in the
Northeastern United States. Journal of School Health, 79, 30-37.
Clark, J. E. (2007). On the problem of motor skill development. Journal of Physical

Education, Recreation & Dance, 78, 39-44.
Clay, M. M. (1998). By different paths to common outcomes. New York, NY: Stenhouse.
Coe, D. P., Pivarknik, J. M., Womack, C. J., Reeves, M. J., & Malina, R. M. (2006).
Effect of physical education and activity levels on academic achievement in
children. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 38, 1515-1519.
Cooke, N. K., Kretlow, A. G., & Helf, S. (2010). Supplemental reading help for
kindergarten students: How early should you start? Preventing School Failure,
54, 137-144. doi:10.1080/10459880903492924
Dennison, P. E., & Dennison, G. E. (1994). Brain gym, teachers edition. Ventura, CA:
Edu-Kinesthetics.
Dennison, P. E., & Dennison, G. E. (2007). Brain gym 101: Balance for daily life (3rd
ed.). Ventura, CA: Edu-Kinesthetics.
118
Denton, C. A., & Al Otaiba, S. (2011). Teaching word identificaiton to students with
reading difficulties and disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 43, 1-17.
Deshler, D. D, & Hock, M. F. (2009). Adolescent literacy: Where are we, where do we
need to go. Retrieved from http://www.ldonline.org/article/12288/
Dills, A. M., Morgan, H. N., & Rotthoff, K. W. (2011). Recess, physical education, and
elementary school student outcomes. Economics of Education Review, 30.
Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1677931
Dodson, C. (2006). I'm not the same teacher I used to be. Brain Gym Journal, 20, 33-
45.
Duff, F. J., Fieldsend, E., Bowyer-Crane, C., Hulme, C., Smith, G., Gibbs, S., &
Snowling, M. J. (2008). Reading with vocabulary intervention: Evaluation with an
instruction with children with poor response to reading intervention. Journal of
Research in Reading, 31, 319-336. doi:1111/j.1467-9817.2008.00376.x
Duran, R. P. (2008). Assessing English-language learners' achievement. Review of

Research in Education, 32, 292-327. doi:10.3102/0091732X07309372
Emslie, A., & Rober, M. C. (2009). Play: The use of play in early childhood. Gyanodaya:
Journal of Progressive Education, 2, 1-26.
Fischer, K. W. (2009). Mind, brain, and education: Building a scientific groundwork for
learning and teaching. Mind, Brain, and Education, 3, 3-16. doi:10.1111/j.1751-
228X.2008.01048.x
Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2006). Educational research: An introduction (8th
ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Gardner, H. (2004). Frames of mind: The theory of multiples intelligences (3rd ed). New
York, NY: Basic Books.
GenerationFit. (n.d.). About us. Retrieved from http://www.generation-

fit.com/3_aboutus.asp
Giguere, M. (2006). Thinking as they create: Do children have similar experiences in

dance as in language arts? Journal of Dance Education, 6, 41-47.
doi:10.1080/15290824.2006.10387311
Ginsberg, K. (2007). The importance of play in promoting healthy child development

and manintaining strong parent-child bonds. Pediatrics, 119, 182-191. Retrieved
form http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/by/year
Goodway, J., & Branta, C. F. (2003). Influence of a motor skill intervention on

fundamental motor skill development of disadvantaged preschool children.
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 74, 36-46.
119
Goodwin, A. P., & Ahn, S. (2010). A meta-analysis of morphological interventions:
Effects on literacy achievement of children with literacy difficulites. Annals of
Dyslexia, 60, 183-208. doi:10.1007/s11881-010-0041-x
Hair, J. F., Tatum, R. L., & Anderson, R. E. (2009). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hannaford, C. (2005). Smart moves: Why learning is not all in your head. Salt Lake City,
UT: Great River Books.
Hillman, C., & Castilli, D. (2009). Science daily. Retrieved from

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/
Holt, Rienhart, & Winston. (1996). Elements of writing: Language skills. Geneva, IL: Holt
McDougal.
Howe, C. A., & Freedson, P. S. (2008, Fall). Physical activity and academic
performance. The President’s Council on Physical Fitness and Sport E-
Newsletter. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Hyatt, K. J. (2007). Brain gym: Building stronger brains or wishful thinking? Remedial
and Special Education, 28, 117-124. doi:10.1177/07419325070280020201
Immordino-Yang, M. & Damasio, A. (2007). We feel therefore we learn: The relevance

of affective social neuroscience to education. Mind, Brain, and Education, 1, 3-
10. Retrieved from http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~immordin/papers/Immordino-
Yang+Damasio_2007_RelevanceofNeurotoEdu.pdf
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).
Jensen, E. (2005). Teaching with the brain in mind (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Jensen, E. (2008a). A fresh look at brain-based education. Phi Delta Kappan, 89, 408-
417.
Jensen, E. (2008b). Brain-based learning: The new paradigm of teaching. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Jensen, E. (2009). Teaching with poverty in mind: What being poor does to kid's brains
and what schools can do about it. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Jensen, E. (2010). Different brains, different learners: How to reach the hard to reach.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Kreeft, A. (2006). A well-tempered mind: Using music to help children listen and learn.
Childhood Education, 82, 182.
120
Linan-Thompson, S. C. (2007). Determining English language learners' response to
intervention: Questions and some answers. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 30,
185-195.
MacDonald, C., & Figueredo, L. (2010). Closing the gap early: Implementing a literacy
intervention for at-risk kindergartners in urban schools. Reading Teacher, 63,
404-419.
Mandara, J. V. (2009). Intergenerational family predictors of the Black-White

achievement gap. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 867-878.
doi:10.1037/a0016644
Martinez, R. S., Aricak, T. O., & Jewell, J. (2008). Influence of reading attitude on
reading achievement: A test of the temporal-interaction model. Psychology in the
Schools, 45, 1010-1022. doi:10.1002/pits.20348
Matthews, J. K. (2010). African Americans and boys: Understanding the literacy gap,
tracing academic trajectories, and evaluating the role of learning-related skills.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 757-771. doi:10.1037/a0019616
Ming, K., & Dukes, C. (2008). Fluency: A necessary ingredient in comprehensive

reading instruction in inclusive classroom. TEACHING Exceptional Children Plus,
4, 2-14. Retrieved from http://escholarship.bc.edu/education/tecplus/vol4/iss4/
art6
Moore-Hart, M. K., & Karabenick, S. A. (2009). Becoming successful readers: A

volunteer tutoring program for culturally diverse students. Literacy Research and
Instruction, 48, 149-171. doi:10.1080/19388070802226329
Muhammad, A. (2009). Transforming school culture: How to overcome staff division.

Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Myhra, M. J. (2009). Sensory integration programs' effect on academics in children in

early childhood special education (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/46815175/Sensory-integration-programs-effect-on-
academics-in-children-in-early-childhood-special-education
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2011). Nations report card: State

profiles. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/
National Association for Sport and Physical Education and the American Heart
Association. (2010). State profiles: Texas. Retrieved from
http://www.aahperd.org/naspe/publications/upload/Texas-profile.pdf
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based

assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for
reading instruction. (Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: National
121
Institutes for Health. Retrieved from http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/
nrp/smallbook.cfm
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6319 (2002).
Nussabaum, S. S. (2010). The effects of 'Brain Gym' as a general education

intervention: Improving academic performance and behaviors (Doctoral
dissertation, Northcentral University). Retrieved from
http://gradworks.umi.com/34/11/3411166.html
Obiakor, F. B., Beachum, F. D., & Harris, M. K. (2010). African American students'
experiences with special education in Milwaukee public schools. Western Journal
of Black Studies, 34, 425-437.
O'Conner, R. S., Swanson, H. L., & Geraghty, C. (2010). Improving in reading rate
under independent and difficult text levels: Influences on word and
comprehension skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 1-19.
doi:10.1037/a0017488
Ogle, D., & Correa-Kovtun, A. (2010). Supporting english-language learners and

struggling in content literacy with the "partner reading and content, too" routine.
Reading Teacher, 63, 532-542. doi:10.1598/RT.63.7.1
Oropeza, M. V., Varghese, M. M., & Kanno, Y. (2010). Linguistic minority students in
higher education: Using, resisting, and negotiating multiple labels. Equity &
Excellence in Education, 43, 216-231. doi:10.1080/10665681003666304
Paik, S., & Walhberg, H. J. (Eds.). (2007). Narrowing the achievement gap: Strategies
for educating Latino, Black, and Asian students. New York, NY: Springer.
Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS survival manual (3rd. ed.). New York, NY: Open University
Press.
Peebles, J. L. (2007). Incorporating movement with fluency instruction: A motivation for

struggling students. Reading Teacher, 60, 578-581. doi:10.1598/RT.60.6.9
Pennington, E. P. (2010). Brain-based learning theory: The incorporation of movement

to increase the learning of grammar by high school students (Doctoral
dissertation, Liberty University). Retrieved from
digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1309&content=doctoral
Pereira, A. C., Huddleston, D. E., Brickman, A. M., Sosunov, A. A., Hen, R., McKhann,
G. M., . . . Small, S. A. (2007). An in vivo correlate of exercise-induces
neurogenesis in the adult dentate gryus. Procedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States, 104, 5638-5643. doi:10.1073/pnas.0611721104
Peterson, K. (2005). Giving back. Brain Gym Journal, 19, 50-65.
122
Physical Activity May Strengthen Children’s Ability to Pay Attention. (2009, April 1).
Science Daily. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/
090331183800.htm
Pinnell, G. S., & Fountas, I. C. (2009). When readers struggle: Teaching that works.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Rasinski, T. H. (2003a). Fluency is fundamental. Instructor, 113, 16-17, 19-20.

Retrieved from http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/fluency-fundamental
Rasinski, T. H. (2003b). The fluent reader. New York, NY: Scholastic Professional
Books.
Rasinski, T. H., Homan, S., & Biggs, M. (2009). Teaching reading fluency to struggling
readers: Method, materials, and evidence. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 25,
192-204. doi:10.1080/10573560802683622
Rasinski, T. H., Samuels, S. J., Hiebert, E., Petscher, Y., & Feller, K. (2011). The
relationship between a silent reading fluency instructional protocol on students'
reading comprehension and achievement in an urban school setting. Reading
Psychology, 32, 75-97.
Ratey, J. J., & Hagerman, E. (2008). Spark: The revolutionary new science of exercise
and the brain. New York, NY: Little, Brown and Company.
Reading Excellence Act of 1998, 29 USC § 2940 (1998).
Reynolds, D., & Nicolson, R. I. (2006). Follow-up of an exercise-based treatment for

children with reading difficulities. Dyslexia, 13, 78-96. doi:10.1002/dsy.331
Robinson, L., & Goodway, J. D. (2009). Instructional climates in preschool children who
are at-risk. Part I: Object-control skill development. Research Quarterly for
Exercise and Sport, 80, 533-542. doi:10.5641/027013609X13088500159480
Rodriguez, E. R., & Bellanca, J. A. (Eds.). (2007). What is it about me you can't teach?
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Rovai, A., P., Gallien, L. B., Jr., & Stiff-Williams, H. R. (Eds.). (2007). Closing the
African-American achievement gap in higher education. New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
Rule, A. D., Dockstader, C. J., & Stewart, R. A. (2006). Hands-on and kinesthetic
activities for teaching phonological awareness. Early Childhood Education
Journal, 34, 195-201. doi:10.1007/s10643-006-0130-y
Shinn, M. R. (2007). Identifying students at risk, monitoring performance, and

determining eligibility within response to intervention: Research on educational
need and benefit from academic intervention. School Psychology Review, 36,
601-617. Retrieved from http://www.redorbit.com/news/education/1212918/
123
identifying_students_at_risk_monitoring_performance_and_determining_eligibilit
y_within/
Shores, C. F. (Ed.). (2009). A comprehensive RTI model: Integrating behavioral and

academic interventions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin .
Short, D. V., Vogt, M. E., & Echevarria, J. J. (2008). The SIOP model for administrators.
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Singer, M. (2008). Accessing the musical intelligence in early childhood education.

Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 33, 49-56.
Skoning, S. N. (2008, July). Movement and dance in the inclusive classroom.

TEACHING Exceptional Children Plus, 4, 2-11. Retrieved from
http://escholarship.bc.edu/education/tecplus/vol4/iss6/art2
Snyder, T. D., & Dillow, S. A. (2011). Digest of education statistics 2010 (NCES Report
No. 2011-015). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/2011015_2a.pdf
Soriano, M., Miranda, A., Soriano, E., Nievas, F., & Felix, V. (2011). Examining the
efficacy of an intervention to improve fluency and reading comprehension in
Spanish children with reading difficulties. International Journal of Disability,
Development and Education, 58, 47-59. doi:10.1080/1034912X.2011.547349
Sousa, D. A. (2006). How the brain learns. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Staiano, A. C., & Calvert, S. L. (2011). Exergames for phyisical education courses:
Physical, social, and cognitive benefits. Child Development Prespectives, 5, 93-
98. doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2011.00162.x
Stephens, T. K., Kinnison, L., & Proctor, A. (2012). The benefits of movement and play
in the development of cognition, developmental, motor, and social skills in early
childhood. Manuscript submitted for publication, Texas Woman’s University,
Denton, Texas.
Stork, S. S., & Sanders, S. W. (2008). Physical education in early childhood.

Elementary School Journal, 108, 197-206. doi:10.1086/529102
Strick, P. L., Dum, R. P., & Fiez, J. A. (2009). Cerebellum and nonmotor function.
Annual Review of Neuroscience, 32, 413-434. doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.
31.060407.125606
Sullivan, A. L. (2011). Disproportionality in special education identification and

placement of English language learners. Exceptional Children, 77, 317-334.
Retrieved from http://www.cec.sped.org/Content/NavigationMenu/
Publications2/ExceptionalChildren/default.htm
124
Test of Gross Motor Development Second Edition. (2000). Retrieved from
http://www.pearsonassessments.com/HAIWEB/Cultures/en-
us/Productdetail.htm?Pid=076-1618-201&Mode=summary
Test of Gross Motor Development. (1985). Retrieved from http://www2.pef.uni-

lj.si/srp_gradiva/tgm.pdf
Texas Education Agency. (2004). TAKS information booklet . Retrieved from

http://www.tea.state.tx.us
Texas Education Agency. (2009). Academic excellence indicator system. Austin, TX:
TEA.
Texas Education Agency. (2010). State profiles: Texas. Retrieved from

www.aahperd.org/naspe/publications/upload/Texas-profile.pdf
Tomporowski, P. D., Davis, C. L., Miller, P. H., & Naglieri, J. A. (2008). Exercise and
children’s intelligence, cognition, and academic achievement. Educational
Psychology Review, 20, 111-131. doi:10.1007/s10648-007-9051-0
Torgesen, J. K. (2007). Research related to strengthening instruction in reading

comprehension: Part 2. Lake City, FL: Florida Center for Reading Research.
Retrieved from http://www.fcrr.org/science/pdf/torgesen/Comprehension_
conference_Day_2.pdf
Tunmer, W. E. (2008). Recent developments in reading intervention research:

Introduction to the special issue. Reading and Writing, 21, 299-316.
doi:10.1007/s11145-007-9108-4
Turner, F. D. (2010). Evaluating the effectiveness of fluency-oriented reading instruction

with increasing Black and Latino reading fluency, as compared to Asian and
White second grade-students reading fluency. Journal of Negro Education, 79,
112-124. Retrieved from http://tchr6020.weebly.com/uploads/6/1/0/3/6103716/
turner_2010.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2003). Identifying and treating attention deficit

hyperactivity disorder: A resource for school and home. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/teachers/needs/speced/adhd/adhd-resource-pt1.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2007). Questions and answers on response to

intervention (RTI) and early intervening services (EIS). Retrieved from
http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/,root,dynamic,QaCorner,8,
U.S. Department of Education. (2010). A blueprint for reform: The reauthorization of the
elementary and secondary education act. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/
policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/blueprint.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2012). Elementary and secondary education act.

Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/esea
125
Walker, L. Y. (2008). Effects of a classroom-based contralateral movement program on
Grade 3 students' numeracy and reading scores (Doctoral dissertation, Walden
University). Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id=ZGD_CZm9VEU
C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=
false
Walker-Dalhouse, D., & Risko, V.J. (2009). Closing boundaries and initiating
converstions about RTI: Understanding and applying differentiated instruction.
Reading Teacher, 63, 84-87. doi:10.1598/RT.63.1.9
Welsh, R. (2006). 20 ways to increase oral reading fluency. Intervention in School and
Clinc, 41, 180-183. Retrieved from http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-
140748510.html
Willis, J. (2007). Brain-based teaching strategies for improving students' memory,

learning, and test-taking scores. Childhood Education, 83, 310-317.
Wilmes, B., Harrington, L., Kohler-Evans, P., & Sumpter, D. (2008). Coming to our
senses: Incorporating brain research findings into classroom instruction.
Education, 28, 659-666.
126

Effects of A Brain Improvement Program On Students' Reading

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Effects of A Brain Improvement Program On Students' Reading

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Effects of A Brain Improvement Program On Students' Reading

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EFFECTS OF A BRAIN IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ON STUDENTS’ READING

Edelmira Sánchez, B.A., M.Ed.

Dissertation Prepared for the Degree of

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS

George Morrison, Major Professor

Reading Achievement. Doctor of Education (Early Childhood Education), May 2013,

126 pp., 17 tables, 3 figures, references, 123 titles.

believing in me especially when I didn’t believe in myself. I appreciate your

integral part in helping me to accomplish my goal.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... iii

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ vi

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................ viii

Background of the Reading Achievement Gap in the United States .............. 2

2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ...................................................................... 17

Reading Skills .............................................................................................. 17

Preliminary Screening Procedures ............................................................... 63

5. SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................... 82

APPENDIX A: INTRODUCTORY LETTER TO PRINCIPALS ....................................... 89

APPENDIX B: INTRODUCTORY LETTER TO PARENTS: eNGLISH .......................... 91

APPENDIX C: INTRODUCTORY LETTER TO PARENTS: SPANISH.......................... 93

APPENDIX D: APPROVED INFORMED CONSENT AND ASSENT: ENGLISH........... 95

APPENDIX E: APPROVED INFORMED CONSENT AND ASSENT: SPANISH ........... 99

APPENDIX F: EXCERPT OF ENGLISH VERSION OF TAKS READING

APPENDIX G: EXCERPT OF SPANISH VERSION OF TAKS READING

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 117

1. S1, S2, S3, and S4 Student Demographics ...................................................... 51

2. Research Assistants’ Demographics ................................................................ 53

3. Pearson χ2 Results for the Cross Tabulations Comparing Between

4. Skewness and Kurtosis Statistics for the Dependent Variables (n = 67)........... 65

5. Frequencies of Control and Experimental Group Participation by

6. Frequencies and Percentages for the Demographic Variables (n = 67)............ 69

7. Descriptive Statistics for the Dependent Measures (n = 67) ............................. 70

8. Means and Standard Deviations for Reading Achievement Across

9. Mixed Between-within Subjects ANOVA Results for Reading

10. Means and Standard Deviations for Reading Achievement Across

11. Mixed Between-within Subjects ANOVA Results for Reading

12. Means and Standard Deviations for Reading Achievement Across

13. Mixed Between-within Subjects ANOVA Results for Reading

14. Means and Standard Deviations for Reading Achievement Across

16. Means and Standard Deviations for Reading Achievement Across

17. Mixed Between-within Subjects ANOVA Results for Reading

1. Score distribution for pretest total score.............................................................. 66

2. Score distribution for posttest total score ............................................................ 66

the fourth and eighth grades (NAEP, 2011).

In Texas, according to NAEP (2011) data, White students scored on average a

their White counterparts. No difference between Hispanic and African American

Paik & Walhberg, 2007).

Background of the Reading Achievement Gap in the United States

fuel teaching to the average. Response to intervention (RTI) is a recommended

doing well academically, specifically in reading.

students’ reading abilities. When students, especially English language learners

likely to be placed in special education, become teenage parents, commit juvenile

comprehension stands at the forefront of addressing the reading achievement problem.

& Dillow, 2011).

By 2009, Hispanic enrollment in public schools in Texas exceeded 11 million

enrollments having reading ability as a disability. Also in 2009, greater percentages of

Hispanic and African American students attended high-poverty elementary and

unchanged between 2009 and 2011 (Aud et al., 2011).

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) member countries.