posted 30 January 2005 02:20 AM              

With Brain Gym, one may not understand or be able to fully assess the neurological and physiological underpinnings of the educational
kinesiology theory; however, testing the results/outcomes of implementing "Brain Gym" techniques by employing solid, well-designed
research is rather straightforward. Here are my concerns about the "literature" for Brain Gym---and some suggestions for improving
the literature so that, if Brain Gym IS/IS NOT effective, we can trust the data behind those conclusions:

Type “Brain Gym” into www.google.com and a dearth of testimonials, pseudo-research, anecdotal evidence, and hype is found on
a multitude of websites purporting Brain Gym as being the “cure all” for learning problems. People have sadly been lured into the belief
that it is effective and frankly, nearly miraculous.

As I scanned through the literature available, as well as many websites cntaining “information” about Brain Gym, I noticed several consistent flaws in the research pertaining to Brain Gym or Educational Kinesiology.

1.Studies that purported Brain Gym’s efficacy generally contained:
a.Small sample sizes (they were case studies, anecdotal research, testimonials—these studies all had too small of a sample size to
adequately trust the data when generalizing it to the population at large.)
b. Studies were often of a very short duration—thereby reducing or eliminating long-term predictive validity of results, as well as
generalization of outcomes to other populations.
c. The definitions of measures used to describe baseline data and/or outcomes were not properly operationalized. (In other words, the description of what was to be measured—such as
rating scales used to report growth, teacher opinion, student behavior, etc. were not specific enough—opening the window for
inaccurate assessment and significantly confounding results. They also were
not designed to exclude many other possible extraneous variables that could affect study outcomes. )
d. Placebo effect had not been eliminated as a variable.
e. Hawthorne effect had not been eliminated as a variable.
f. Effects of subjects’ attention (Attention Effect) to treatment condition vs. control group were not controlled.
g. Motivation effects were not controlled.
h. Outcome bias was not controlled.
i. None contained double-blind studies, or studies containing the observations/assessments conducted by evaluators who were not
previously aware of which students received treatment.
j. In all but the Ferree’s study (see abstract at bottom of this message), control groups were not properly designed. There was either the treatment group, or a control group that got no treatment. There were no groups that got an equal, but different, treatment (e.g., such
as a control group that engaged in “generic” physical movement, such as unscripted exercise, with which the differences between prescribed Brain Gym activities could be accurately compared. This would help one understand
whether general exercise/activity is beneficial to better academic outcomes versus specifically Brain Gym—and whether one has more impact than another. Even more problematic was the fact
that studies lacked design that would enable us to determine if the outcomes were due to Brain Gym, exercise, or the result of one or more of the aforementioned concerns stated in a.
through i.)
k.Baseline and Outcome measures (pre-intervention and post-intervention measures/tests/observations) were conducted
using unreliable tools. These may include:
i.Assessments that are not capable of reliably measuring small academic gains—such as what would be required for these types of studies
ii.Measures that are not valid for the use the
investigators intended
iii.For those studies containing observations and/or rating scales, the measures were not specified or provided in the studies. This means that we have no way of evaluating the quality of the scales used (i.e., item quality, item bias, technical adequacy, or reliability/validity of the tool)
iv.How staff was trained in how to do proper assessment administration before the study was started is not mentioned.
v.Observations (pre and post intervention) were not conducted in a systematic and reliable manner (or if they were, no data are provided that would indicate such thing). As a result, the data cannot be sufficiently trusted.
vi.Subjects who were evaluated using these measures were not generally randomized for selection or assignment to control groups.
vii.No data are provided for how teachers (or those providing pre-and-post test data) were trained in the administration/scoring of the tests used to determine outcomes.

These are just a few examples of the multiple problems associated with the “research” that has been discussed on the internet. (Generally
speaking, the academic community most often regards research that exists only on the internet--without also being published
in scholarly journals—as potentially unreliable reliable because it has not gone through the rigors of the peer-review process).

For those who are not familiar with research and how it is conducted and published: Investigators who conduct studies—and do so well—are continually motivated to submit their findings to scholarly journals for review, acceptance, and ultimate publication when those studies
are deserving. Ethical researchers WANT to have their studies published for public review and consumption—they are continually motivated to educate others about their findings and want
to advance the field. They want to educate others on “best practice.” They
appreciate good research design and earn the respect of colleagues and the public by generating such research.

Even more skepticism…

What I found to be most suspicious about Brain Gym is the preponderance of “research” cited only on the Brain Gym website, or on related sites purporting Brain Gym’s benefits. It is
extremely odd that “Brain Gym research” studies are almost exclusively published in the “Brain Gym Journal,” which appears to not a peer-
reviewed or respected journal within the research and academic communities. This
journal, which is funded and published by Brain Gym (another reason for suspicion), is not publicly accessible (i.e., not in most journal
databases or subscribed to by university libraries). If you want to read most of their “studies,” you must pay a fee. I find
it incredibly “interesting” that one cannot read their studies online, at their website. What company/program would develop a website for their business—but not want to publicly provide hard data and solid research that describes the utility of the tools they are promoting? Why would one have to PAY to read information—advertised on their website--that supports the use of their own program and tools? This
makes me think that the “research” contained inside those pricy documents is
something they do not want viewed by anyone other than desperate individuals who do not understand the components of good research.
Desperate parents and/or those unfamiliar with the rigors of true research come to mind…

Without question, if their research was truly useful and of quality, they would either be submitting it to peer-reviewed journals so that
the masses could obtain copies and read about the efficacy of such interventions (and critique their research designs fairly before putting faith in the findings), or publishing it on their website for all to read. Why wouldn’t Brain Gym want to do this? It would only
further promote their cause and enable their business to grow! The fact they hide their self-conducted “research” in a self-published “journal” available only for purchase, thereby limiting public access, is deserving of our deepest concern and skepticism. To even further exacerbate the situation, there is
unfortunately plenty of pseudo-research on the web that “sounds good” to those who do not
have experience or training in quality research design. The hype, the testimonials, and the claims made are entirely untrustworthy without
empirical evidence.

Even so, thousands of dollars are spent on the empty promises Brain Gym offers.

Here is an abstract from one of only a handful of well-designed studies regarding Brain Gym that were in peer-reviewed journals. All of which concluded that Brain Gym was not an effective strategy to improve academic learning:

Ferree, Ruth M.
Affiliation: U Virginia, US
Brain gym, exercise, and cognition.
Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities & Social Sciences Vol 62(7-A) (Feb 2002): 2340
Additional Info: Univ Microfilms International; US; http://www.il.proquest.com/umi/
ISSN: 0419-4209 (Print)
English
Proponents of the commercial program Brain Gym; claim that their regiment of physical exercise enhances learning and thinking. Although many researchers have found modest support for the notion that exercise promotes cognitive functioning, the Brain Gym; claims remain largely uninvestigated. To test the efficacy of the Brain Gym; program, 30 fourth graders were assessed on a battery of behavioral and cognitive measures before and after intervention. More specifically, two teachers rated each student's behavior using the Conner's Short Teacher Rating Scale-Revised. Based on those ratings, and Stanford 9 Achievement Test scores, participants were ranked for behavior and achievement and placed in matched triads. From the triads, participants were randomly assigned to one of three activity groups: Brain Gym; exercises, light aerobic exercises, or social activities, which served as a non-exercising control. All were assessed on three cognitive measures: a verbal fluency test, an arithmetic operations test and the d2 Test of Attention. For five weeks, the groups met each morning for 15 minutes of the designated activities. At the end of five weeks, participants took the tests again. Teachers again completed the behavior rating scale and were interviewed for qualitative impressions of changes in participants' performance. Content analysis of the teacher interviews revealed that although rating scores improved, teachers believed that most students had changed little during this time or they attributed the change to factors other than exercise. Quantitative data analysis revealed significant changes in all measures from pre to post sessions, but only the significant group effect was on arithmetic test scores. On the arithmetic posttest, participants in both exercising groups scored significantly higher than the control group, but there was no such difference between the two exercise groups. These findings support the notion that exercise in general may enhance cognitive performance, but they do not offer much support for the claims of the Brain Gym; program. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2004 APA, all rights reserved)

May I also suggest you read the following by Dr. Larry B. Silver BIO: a Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist, is in private practice in the Washington, D.C. area. He is Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at Georgetown University Medical Center. Prior to his current activities, he was Acting Director and Deputy Director of the National Institute of Mental Health of the National Institutes of Health. Prior to his positions at the National Institute of Mental Health he was Professor of Psychiatry, Professor of Pediatrics, and Chief of the Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry at the Robert Wood Johnson School of Medicine)

Read articles titled: Controversial Therapies (below is the link to a newsletter where it was reprinted) http://www.idabc.com/archive/Orton%20summer%202002.pdf

quote:

---

Originally posted by mrsmac:
I am a parent currently undertaking a WEA course on"Helping in schools". Part of my course includes doing a topic. I have decided to do mine on "Brain Gym". I would like to know what teachers actually think of Brain Gym....is it a waste of time or do you get results? Any replies gratefully received!!
Thanks

---

posted 25 March 2005 09:26 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by mrsh:
What a comprehensive reply from LL. Maybe if s/he spent more time in class rather than researching documents, they might have found that any 'brain exercises' or 'movement for learning' can be and should be fun. Pupils always learn better when they are having fun.

---

I am a professor at a university and a psychologist in the schools. I work daily with students with a wide variety of disabilities and learning needs. In my spare time, I extensively explore the research and review best practices. I have contributed to textbooks pertaining to the educational field and have researched learning skills, programs, and neurological processes during my graduate and post graduate work.

Yes, Brain Gym may be "fun." I never implied that it was not. Rather, I emphasize the lack of research required to support its use and financial backing in schools. Traditional exercise does the same thing without the expensive training, materials, etc.
--L.L.

posted 17 May 2005 01:34 PM              

Thanks for a very helpful report on your findings. I've just started reseaching this as I want to find out why on earth my daughter's primary is using what appears to be an unfounded and expensive pack of pseudoscience. It seems to be popular with teachers, but I'm very concerned that these are the people who are meant to be teaching our kids to be critical thinkers and to have a grounding in basic science. An important angle you haven't covered is the content of what is taught to the kids about what they are doing. I can only get at this second hand, as I'm not about to go on a course or buy a book, but it seems that the pseudoscience gets peddaled directly to the pupils (eg the role of water in the brain).

posted 19 May 2005 05:04 PM              

So what you're saying is, it doesn't really matter what we tell primary school kids, it doesn't have to be true or anything, as long as they're healthy and well-behaved? What it looks like to me is: revenue is being wasted, which could be spent on more worthwhile training. The kids could do any old exercises without being told a load of psychobabble, and the Brain Gym corporation could stop polluting the well of knowledge.

posted 19 May 2005 08:19 PM            

Point taken, though I really don't believe it is harmful, and yes, I think the Brain Gym people are getting money for old rope. It will probably be short-lived anyway....the teachers in my children's school have all but given up doing it now, apart from allowing water to drunk when necessary. ( I wish I had been allowed to do that when I was at primary school.)

posted 22 July 2005 10:29 PM              

Primary schools and teachers are flooded with new ideas and approaches which claim to be good for children... I find it interesting when bandwagons start rolling about a particular approach and how it 'revolutionises child development'... As has been mentioned new interesting activities often capture the imagination of teachers, parents and children....and variety and engagement are useful in making a difference... Nevertheless if one added all the possible new approaches together, taking their claims into account then teachers and staff would go demented and be driven mad..

posted 08 September 2005 11:38 AM              

Answers to the following questions would be really useful!

Have you ever used brain gym in school?

If yes, was this through your own initiiaive or part of the school policy?

Have you ever had any formal training on Brain Gym?

Do you currently use brain Gym? Please state reasons for your answer.

Do you believe that there are any benefits for children, as a reult of brain gym activities?

Do you believe it accelerates learning?

Do you believe that it can stimu;ate a positive disposition towards learning?

posted 15 September 2005 08:22 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leeambeth:
Hi everyone! I have really enjoyed this debate on brain gym. I too am currently researching brain gym in schools and would love to haer from those of you with any experience of using brain gym in class.

Answers to the following questions would be really useful!

Have you ever used brain gym in school?

If yes, was this through your own initiiaive or part of the school policy?

Have you ever had any formal training on Brain Gym?

Do you currently use brain Gym? Please state reasons for your answer.

Do you believe that there are any benefits for children, as a reult of brain gym activities?

Do you believe it accelerates learning?

Do you believe that it can stimu;ate a positive disposition towards learning?

Many thanks
Amanda

---

posted 15 September 2005 08:25 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ANNIE ARK:

---

posted 15 September 2005 08:45 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leeambeth:
Hi everyone! I have really enjoyed this debate on brain gym. I too am currently researching brain gym in schools and would love to haer from those of you with any experience of using brain gym in class.

Answers to the following questions would be really useful!

Have you ever used brain gym in school?

If yes, was this through your own initiiaive or part of the school policy?

Have you ever had any formal training on Brain Gym?

Do you currently use brain Gym? Please state reasons for your answer.

Do you believe that there are any benefits for children, as a reult of brain gym activities?

Do you believe it accelerates learning?

Do you believe that it can stimu;ate a positive disposition towards learning?

Many thanks
Amanda

---