See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/249835283

Brain Gym(R): Building Stronger Brains or Wishful Thinking?

Article  in  Remedial and Special Education · April 2007

DOI: 10.1177/07419325070280020201

CITATIONS READS
43 3,271

1 author:

Keith J. Hyatt
Western Washington University
9 PUBLICATIONS   111 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Keith J. Hyatt on 01 September 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Brain Gym®
Building Stronger Brains or Wishful Thinking?
K E I T H J . H YAT T
ABSTRACT
A s part of the accountability movement, schools are
increasingly called upon to provide interventions that are based
on sound scientific research and that provide measurable out-
comes for children. Brain Gym® is a popular commercial program
claiming that adherence to its regimen will result in more efficient
learning in an almost miraculous manner. However, a review of the
theoretical foundations of Brain Gym® and the associated peer-re-
viewed research studies failed to support the contentions of the
promoters of Brain Gym®. Educators are encouraged to become
informed consumers of research and to avoid implementing
programming for which there is neither a credible theoretical nor a
sound research basis.
S INCE AT LEAST THE BEGINNING OF THE 20TH CEN-
tury, American schools have been called upon to provide a
wide range of educational programming that should result in
significant benefits for society (Bracey, 2002). In October
1957, the successful launch of the Sputnik satellite by the So-
viet Union resulted in immediate demands for reform in
American schools in order to address Soviet technological
advances. A similar call for increased standards was promul-
gated by the National Commission on Excellence in Educa-
tion’s (1983) report, A Nation at Risk, in which public
education was described as mediocre. Although some schol-
ars have argued that American schools are performing much
better than suggested by the bleak accounts commonly found
in the media and in government sources (Berliner & Biddle,
1995; Bracey, 2002), there is no question that schools are
being held to higher levels of accountability. Both the No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and the Individuals with Dis-
abilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 have required
that whenever possible, schools must provide students with
academic instruction using scientific, research-based meth-
ods. Although an exact definition of scientific, research-based
methodology is not contained in either law, Browder and
Cooper-Duffy (2003) stressed the importance of using and
building upon instructional methodologies that have sound
empirical support from high-quality research studies.
Brain Gym® is one popular commercial program mar-
keted in more than 80 countries (“Official Brain Gym® Web
Site,” 2005, About §) that has received a considerable amount
of attention in the press, with many individuals claiming that
it provided the necessary stimulation needed for effective
learning (Chaker, 2005; Hannaford, 1996; Ratliff, 2005). Ac-
cording to a training schedule published on the Official Brain
Gym® Web site, there were 337 different trainings scheduled
between February and December of 2006. Of those trainings,
211 were scheduled in the United States, with the remaining
126 trainings scheduled in Canada, Australia, the United
Kingdom, France, Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, Japan,
Indonesia, and Singapore.
The specific purposes of this article are (a) to review the
theoretical bases and research findings on which the develop-
ers of Brain Gym® base the claim that their movement activ-
ities will enhance learning and (b) to determine whether those
activities are scientific, research-based practices. To accom-
plish these goals, a brief description of Brain Gym® will be pro-
vided, followed by a review of the theoretical foundations of
the program, a critique of the relevant research findings, and
finally conclusions and recommendations.
R E M E D I A L A N D S P E C I A L E D U C A T I O N
117
Volume 28, Number 2, March/April 2007, Pages 117–124
 WHAT IS BRAIN GYM®?
Brain Gym®, also known as educational kinesiology, was de-
veloped in the 1970s by Dennison and Dennison (“Official
Brain Gym® Web Site,” 2005, About §, ¶ 3) and consists of a
series of movements that purportedly activate the brain, pro-
mote neurological repatterning, and facilitate whole-brain
learning (Dennison & Dennison, 1994). The program is based
on the notion that learning problems are caused when differ-
ent sections of the brain and body do not work in a coordi-
nated manner, thereby blocking an individual’s ability to
learn (Dennison & Dennison, 1994). To overcome this learn-
ing block, the program recommends a variety of simple
movements that are intended to improve the integration of
specific brain functions with body movements. In fact, Brain
Gym® is described as a process for re-educating the mind and
body that would result in learning any skill more efficiently
and easily (“Official Brain Gym® Web Site,” 2005, FAQ §, ¶ 1).
The theoretical basis on which brain functioning is con-
ceptualized, according to Brain Gym® literature, is relatively
simplistic and described along three dimensions: laterality,
focusing, and centering (Braingym.com, 2005, What Is It
§, ¶¶ 3–5; Dennison & Dennison, 1994; “Official Brain
Gym® Web Site,” 2005, What Are Edu-K’s Three Dimensions
§). Laterality refers to the coordination between the right and
left hemispheres of the brain and is viewed as necessary for
reading, writing, listening, speaking, and the ability to move
and think at the same time. Focusing refers to the ability to
coordinate information between the front and back portion of
the brain and is related to comprehension as well as attention-
deficit/hyperactivity disorder. The final dimension, centering,
refers to the coordination of the top and bottom halves of the
brain, which is described as necessary to balance rational
thought with emotion. Although efficient connections among
various parts of the brain may foster cognitive development,
none of the Brain Gym® literature has provided research-
based, scientific evidence supporting this view of brain func-
tioning. In fact, the Brain Gym® literature has made it sound
as if the brain could be easily partitioned into different sec-
tions, and that simple movement activities would result in im-
proved neurological development and learning for people of
all ages.
Because the developers of Brain Gym® own the copy-
right for the specific movement activities, none of these will
be described in detail. However, suffice it to note that the
movements include activities such as crawling, drawing, tracing
symbols in the air, yawning, and drinking water. Dennison
noted that he included yawning after becoming convinced
that purposeful yawning had improved his eyesight (Denni-
son & Dennison, 1994) but failed to provide research support
for the link between yawning and vision.
None of the Brain Gym® movements that supposedly fa-
cilitate academic learning actually include academic instruc-
tion as a component; rather, it seems that the purpose of the
movements is to get the child ready to learn. Furthermore,
118 R E M E D I A L A N D S P E C I A L E D U C A T I O N
Volume 28, Number 2, March/April 2007
none of the movements include an assessment activity to de-
termine which of the three dimensions of the brain require at-
tention and which movement would be most appropriate. It
appears that an armchair diagnosis is all that is required to
implement a movement regime that purportedly causes neu-
rological changes in a student.
THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS
The three main theoretical categories on which Brain Gym®
is based include neurological repatterning, cerebral domi-
nance, and perceptual–motor training. Although there is over-
lap among these different theories, they are categorized by
their most salient features to provide some degree of structure
to the review.
Neurological Repatterning
A major foundational assumption of Brain Gym® is the idea
of neurological repatterning, and many of its activities are
based on the Doman-Delacato theory of development (Den-
nison & Dennison, 1994). According to this recapitulationist
theory, ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, meaning that the
development of the individual mirrors the development of the
species (Crain, 2000). Thus, to achieve efficient neurological
development, the individual must satisfactorily acquire spe-
cific motor skills during different developmental stages. If
motor skills associated with any of the developmental stages
have been skipped, then neurological development is hin-
dered and learning abilities are limited (Doman, 1968).
According to Doman (1968), a child who walked before
crawling missed a critical step in motor development, which
could account for future difficulties with more complex neu-
rological processes such as reading. To treat this neurological
gap, the child would be provided with exercises that mimic-
ked primitive motor development to ensure that movements
at all stages were mastered. Accordingly, the child would be
taught to crawl, with the idea that this would repattern the
neurons, leaving the child neurologically intact and ready to
acquire academic skills. In a review of the Doman-Delacato
procedures, MacKay, Gollogly, and McDonald (1986) clearly
described the different crawling treatments associated with
the procedure and noted that the program was not effective in
ameliorating disabilities. Other researchers (Robbins, 1966;
Stone & Pielstick, 1969) had also found the Doman-Delacato
procedures ineffective prior to the development of Brain
Gym®.
Numerous organizations have issued cautionary state-
ments regarding the Doman-Delacato procedures. “The Doman-
Delacato Treatment of Neurologically Handicapped Children”
(American Academy of Pediatrics, 1968) was a joint state-
ment approved by the American Academy for Cerebral Palsy,
American Academy of Neurology, American Academy of Pe-
diatrics, American Academy for Physical Medicine and Re-
habilitation, American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine,
American Academy of Orthopedics, Canadian Association
for Children with Learning Disabilities, Canadian Associa-
tion for Retarded Children, Canadian Rehabilitation Council
for the Disabled, and the National Association for Retarded
Citizens. This large group of well-respected medical and ed-
ucational professionals identified serious concerns with the
procedures, the claims of successful interventions, and the
concomitant lack of empirical evidence supporting the repat-
terning therapies used by the Institutes for Achievement of
Human Potential, which promoted the Doman-Delacato
treatment procedures. To date, the idea of neural organization
or neurological repatterning has not met the rigors of scien-
tific research, and programs that offered repatterning have not
resulted in increased learning (American Academy of Pedi-
atrics, 1999; Cohen, 1969; Robbins, 1966; Stone & Pielstick,
1969). Novella (1996) has gone so far as to state that the In-
stitutes for Achievement of Human Potential are practicing
fraud. Thus, it appears that one of the major theoretical bases
on which Brain Gym® was developed has failed to meet the
rigors of scientific investigation decades ago and may have
gained some notoriety in the process.
Cerebral Dominance
Dennison and Dennison (1994) noted that Brain Gym® was
also based on work by Orton, who investigated causes and
treatments for learning disabilities. Orton’s work was con-
ducted in the early twentieth century, and he theorized that
mixed cerebral dominance was a cause of reading difficulty
(Orton, 1937). However, research has not substantiated the
impact of cerebral dominance on learning (Mayringer and
Wimmer, 2002; Mohan, Singh, & Mandal, 2001; Pipe, 1988),
and after reviewing brain research studies, Hynd and Semrud-
Clikeman (1989) determined that the evidence failed to sup-
port the contention that deviations in brain morphology were
related to learning difficulties.
Orton (1937) also speculated that the transposition and
reversal of letters indicated problems with cerebral domi-
nance and were indicative of learning problems. Research
findings have also failed to support this assumption. Liber-
man, Shankweiler, Orlando, Harris, and Bell Berti (1971) and
Stanovich (1985) noted that poor readers may have letter se-
quence and reversal errors, but as a proportion of the total
number of errors made, there was no significant difference
when compared to error patterns of good readers. As Stan-
ovich (1985) noted, “the sequencing and ‘reversal’ errors
(b/d, was/saw) that once loomed so large in importance have
proven to be a dead end” (p. 70).
Hallahan and Mercer (2001) noted that few subscribe to
this theory of cerebral dominance today, but Orton’s theory
was a basis for the Orton-Gillingham approach to reading that
is still in use. This approach, as described by Sheffield
(1991), is really a philosophy that incorporated multisensory
phonics-based activities into instructional programs, not a
specific instructional strategy. Oakland, Black, Stanford, Nuss-
baum, and Balise (1998) noted that little research has been
conducted to validate the Orton-Gillingham approach, and in
a book entirely devoted to multisensory teaching, Moats and
Farrell (2005) noted that it “endures even though it has been
poorly defined and is not well validated in existing interven-
tion studies” (p. 33).
As Dennison and Dennison (1994) did not identify a
specific relationship between Orton’s work and Brain Gym®,
one might assume that the link was related to Orton’s ideas of
cerebral dominance as well as the multisensory approaches.
However, Orton’s theories regarding hemispheric dominance
have been refuted in the literature, and there is a lack of
empirical support for multisensory teaching approaches. In
essence, this line of theoretical support recognized by the de-
velopers of Brain Gym® has also failed the rigors of scientific
inquiry.
Perceptual–Motor Training
A third theory on which Brain Gym® has drawn is that of
perceptual–motor training—an approach to learning that at-
tributed learning problems to inefficient integration of any
combination of visual, auditory, and motor skills. Accord-
ingly, if a child had an academic deficit, the appropriate per-
ceptual skills could be taught that would enable the child to
overcome the learning problems. Some of the strategies used
to purportedly improve perceptual–motor skills and improve
learning have included activities such as crawling, bouncing
balls, throwing beanbags, and walking on a balance beam.
Barsch (1967), for example, promoted a movement curricu-
lum called Movigenics, claiming that the development of
movement patterns was related to learning efficiency.
A considerable amount of research has failed to demon-
strate that perceptual–motor training activities are effective
academic interventions (Arter & Jenkins, 1979; Bochner, 1978;
Cohen, 1969; Hammill, Goodman, & Wiederholt, 1974; Ka-
vale & Forness, 1987; Kavale & Mattson, 1983; Sullivan,
1972). Despite these unfavorable research findings, the no-
tion of perceptual–motor training as an academic intervention
has persisted. In a current text on assessment in special edu-
cation, Salvia and Ysseldyke (2004) devoted a chapter to the
assessment of perceptual–motor skills because some tests are
still in use today. However, they noted that the tests were nei-
ther theoretically nor psychometrically adequate and stated
that “the real danger is that reliance on such tests in planning
interventions for children may actually lead teachers to as-
sign children to activities that do the children no known
good” (p. 538).
There has also been a considerable amount of research
on modality (visual, auditory, kinesthetic) assessment and in-
structional procedures. Arter and Jenkins (1979) and Kavale
and Forness (1987) found that the literature failed to support
either the assessment or training of visual, auditory, and
kinesthetic skills or the relationship between modality train-
R E M E D I A L A N D S P E C I A L E D U C A T I O N
119
Volume 28, Number 2, March/April 2007
ing and the acquisition of academic skills. They therefore rec-
ommended that the modality model be abandoned in favor
of the development of effective, research-based instructional
procedures.
An additional area of perceptual–motor training that ap-
pears to have been incorporated into Brain Gym® is vision
therapy. The American Academy of Pediatrics, American
Academy of Ophthalmology, and American Association for
Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus issued a joint state-
ment strongly discrediting vision therapy (American Acad-
emy of Pediatrics, 1998). In that statement, they noted that
eye defects do not cause letter reversals and that no scientific
evidence supports claims that the academic skills of children
with learning disabilities can be improved through vision
training or the use of colored glasses. Whereas visual prob-
lems should be corrected, there is no convincing body of re-
search supporting the use of optometric visual training as a
treatment for learning problems (Keogh & Pelland, 1985;
Sieban, 1977; Silver, 1995).
Summary of Theoretical Foundations
Brain Gym® materials and writings have consistently pro-
moted the notion that the exercises “activate the brain” and
facilitate “whole brain learning.” However, Brain Gym® ma-
terials provide no scientific support that the brain needs to be
“turned on,” nor do the materials provide research support re-
garding whole brain learning or even a definition of exactly
what this term means. These terms appear to be phrases that
capture the imagination and lead the uninformed reader to be-
lieve in something for which there is no theoretical support.
In fact, research findings have strongly refuted the theoretical
foundations on which Brain Gym® was developed. Neurolog-
ical repatterning has been described as fraudulent, cerebral
dominance has not been linked to learning, and perceptual–
motor training has not withstood rigorous scientific investi-
gation.
In contrast to claims made by the promoters of brain-
based approaches, such as Brain Gym®, Bruer (2004) noted
that neurological development is genetically determined and
that there is no research supporting the notion that certain
movements facilitate neural development. He did note that
for some areas of the brain, such as the visual center, there ap-
pears to be a critical period when sensory input is required for
proper neurological development. However, he made the case
that much of the rush by educators to provide “brain-based”
learning opportunities for children is based on information
that is selective, oversimplified, or incorrectly interpreted,
and he strongly urged that educators and the public exercise
great caution when trying to apply findings from brain sci-
ence to educational interventions. In essence, brain science
has provided information about neurons and synapses but has
not provided information that could guide educational prac-
tices in any meaningful ways (Bruer, 1999; Ormrod, 2004;
Seger et al., 2000).
120 R E M E D I A L A N D S P E C I A L E D U C A T I O N
Volume 28, Number 2, March/April 2007
RESEARCH FINDINGS
In spite of the lack of a research-supported theoretical foun-
dation for Brain Gym®, some research has been conducted
regarding the application of the procedures. An extensive lit-
erature review resulted in the identification of only five peer-
reviewed journal articles that addressed the effectiveness of
Brain Gym®. Of those five articles, only four will be re-
viewed; one was discarded because the author of that article
was one of the four participants in the study (Wolfsont,
2002). Three of the remaining four articles were published in
the same journal, in which authors must pay for publication.
Rather than describing each study in detail, Table 1 provides
an overview. The research described in these articles con-
tained serious methodological flaws, some of which will be
briefly discussed here.
Khalsa, Morris, and Sifft (1988) conducted a study to
determine whether participation in Brain Gym® activities re-
sulted in improved static balance of children as measured by
performance on a modified stork stand test (i.e., on one foot
with the other hooked behind the knee of the supporting leg
and hands on hips). Following a pretest measure, treatment
regimens for the two treatment groups were conducted by an
unspecified number of classroom teachers with children of
varying ages who attended different elementary schools. The
authors did not describe the training received by the teachers,
nor did they identify whether any safeguards were imple-
mented to ensure treatment fidelity across teachers and set-
tings. Because these threats to validity were not addressed, it
is within reason to assume that the teachers of the treatment
groups told students that they were doing the Brain Gym® ac-
tivities to improve their performance on an upcoming stork
stand test. Furthermore, it is unknown whether students were
prohibited from practicing the stork stand during the treat-
ment phase of the study. At posttest, the students were tested
on the stork stand, and the results indicated a significant dif-
ference in the gain scores, with the repatterned group show-
ing the most improvement, followed by the movement group.
Gain scores were computed by subtracting pretest scores
from posttest scores, but the authors’ use of gain scores is of
particular concern, due to the unknown reliability of such
scores (Thorndike, 2005). The researchers’ descriptions of
the data were also contradictory. They stated that there were
no significant differences between the mean scores of the
groups at pretest, but when discussing posttest results, they
stated that one group’s initial mean score was “well below
those of the other two groups” (p. 55). Due to the numerous
methodological errors, the findings of this study cannot be in-
terpreted with an acceptable level of certainty, but perhaps a
more crucial question is whether performing the stork stand
is educationally relevant and whether the 10 min per day for
6 weeks (5 hrs) of the intervention was a good use of instruc-
tional time for children experiencing learning problems.
Sifft and Khalsa (1991) described a study conducted to
determine whether the response time of college students to
 TABLE 1. Overview of Brain Gym Research

Intervention strategies Statistical

Publication Participants Design Measures and duration test

Khalsa, Morris, & 60 (30 boys, 30 girls) Group Pre- and posttest Group 1: one 10-min ses- One-way
Siftt, 1988 Identified as having 1: repattern on modified sion in homolateral and ANOVA
LD 2: movement stork stand cross-lateral move-
ages 7–11 yrs 3: control ments and unspecified
eye movement + BG 10
min/day, 6 weeks
Group 2: BG 10 min/day,
6 weeks
Group 3: comparison

Sifft & Khalsa, 1991 60 (30 men, Group Pre- and posttest Group 1: one 10-min ses- Two-way
30 women) 1: repattern on 2 mea- sion in homolateral and ANOVA
ages 19–40 yrs 2: movement sures of re- cross-lateral move-
3: control sponse time ments and unspecified
eye movement + 5 min
BG
Group 2: 5 min BG
Group 3: 5 min of rest
5–15-min interventions

Cammisa, 1994 25 (19 boys, 6 girls) Group served as Pre- and posttest Unspecified BG move- Paired t tests
Identified as having own control on perceptual ments for 1 year
LD and academic
ages 7-4–17-4 tests

De los Santos, 2002 School 1: 390 School 1: Experi- Teacher ratings Group 1 (Experimental): Teacher ratings
students mental group and perfor- played classical music and percent-
School 2: 596 School 2: Control mance on during class time + 20 age of mean
students group academic min/day of brain exer- score in-
ages pre-K–Grade 5 achievement cises crease on
tests Group 2 (Control): regular academic
instruction tests
1-year intervention

Note. LD = learning disabilities; BG = Brain Gym®.

two types of visual stimuli could be shortened following a
Brain Gym® intervention. As with their earlier study (Khalsa
et al., 1988), the authors did not describe any procedures to
ensure treatment fidelity. At posttest, they reported a signifi-
cant main effect for groups, with the repatterned group de-
creasing response time most, followed by the movement
group, then the control group. However, there were several
methodological problems with this study. The authors did not
determine whether there were differences in performance
among the groups prior to the intervention, and the data
analysis did not identify an interaction effect—just a main ef-
fect that simply indicated that the response time of all three
groups decreased. Thus, the decrease in response time could
not be attributed to the intervention. Moreover, the authors
computed statistical tests using “gain scores,” which, as pre-
viously noted, are of dubious value due to reliability con-
cerns. Although the authors concluded that the results sup-
ported the efficacy of Brain Gym®, a careful reading of the
study indicates that the data did not demonstrate that the
Brain Gym® activities were superior to no treatment at all.
Due to the numerous methodological problems, including the
lack of controls for threats to validity, lack of reliability evi-
dence, and inappropriate statistical procedures, the results of
this study cannot be accepted with any degree of certainty.
Cammisa (1994) reported that following 1 year of Brain
Gym® activities, the participants scored significantly higher
on a test of perceptual–motor skills but not on an academic
measure. However, the author failed to adequately describe
the study, and there were several significant methodological
problems. The author did not describe which Brain Gym®

R E M E D I A L A N D S P E C I A L E D U C A T I O N
121
Volume 28, Number 2, March/April 2007
activities were prescribed, whether there was a reason for
choosing a particular Brain Gym® activity, or what were the
frequency and duration of the activities. Furthermore, there
was no control for the variation in age range of participants,
and, as the author correctly noted, it was impossible to at-
tribute any gain in perceptual development to Brain Gym®,
because the effects of maturation had not been controlled.
The participants also served as their own controls for the
academic measure, with grade-equivalent scores on a norm-
referenced test used as the measurement. The author assumed
that academic growth would be the same for each year, which
could be a faulty assumption, due to extraneous variables
such as teacher effectiveness, student motivation, or outside
tutoring. Moreover, the author noted that children with dis-
abilities were not included in the standardization sample for
the academic test. Therefore, the instrument used to measure
their academic performance had not been validated for this
use. Another serious flaw in this study was the use of grade-
equivalent scores, which are not suitable metrics for statisti-
cal comparisons (Salvia & Ysseldyke, 2004). In essence, this
study contained so many methodological problems that the
results cannot be interpreted with any level of certainty.
The final study obtained was reported by de los Santos
(2002) in an article focused on improving the success of His-
panic students in higher education. Interesting enough, the re-
search reported in the article was conducted with elementary
school students and then extrapolated to university students.
The intervention consisted of students in the target school lis-
tening to Mozart during the day and participating in activities
based on Brain Gym®, while students in the comparison
group participated in their usual activities during the school
year. The author concluded that the intervention was success-
ful; however, comparisons were made using only teacher
ratings of students in the target school and percentages of in-
crease in mean scores on academic tests, with no determina-
tion of whether the differences between the groups were
statistically significant. The researcher did not control for
threats to validity or address issues related to reliability of
measures or to treatment fidelity. The article concluded with
a recommendation that university students use Brain Gym®
type exercises before an examination to improve test perfor-
mance but provided no credible research support for that rec-
ommendation. As with the other studies reviewed, this study
contained so many methodological flaws that the data cannot
be interpreted with any degree of certainty.
Taken together, these studies clearly failed to support
claims that Brain Gym® movements were effective interven-
tions for academic learning. They were overcome by method-
ological difficulties, and two studies failed to address
academic learning at all. With the exception of the studies re-
viewed in the previous section, the only other research reports
located during the review were those listed on the Brain
Gym® Web site and available for purchase. Two of those ar-
ticles were published in peer-reviewed journals and have
been discussed in the previous sections. One other was pub-
122 R E M E D I A L A N D S P E C I A L E D U C A T I O N
Volume 28, Number 2, March/April 2007
lished in a journal that is no longer in print, and the citation
was insufficient to order the article through an academic li-
brary. However, the majority of the articles listed were not re-
viewed, because quality research should be published in
peer-reviewed journals available through academic libraries
rather than sold by the organization promoting the treatment
or publishing the journals, as was the case with Brain Gym®.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In the Revised Teacher’s Edition of Brain Gym®, Dennison &
Dennison (1994) concluded with a section identifying which
Brain Gym® exercises could be used to facilitate learning
in a variety of academic areas: reading skills, oral reading,
reading comprehension, thinking skills, spelling, math, pen-
manship, creative writing, clear listening and thinking, self-
esteem, sports and play, memory, abstract thinking, creative
thinking, speed reading, and test taking. Moreover, they
claimed that Brain Gym® movements could improve activi-
ties such as keyboarding and riding in a car, bus, or plane;
however, how such improvements would take place was not
identified. Finally, the Brain Gym® home page (“Official
Brain Gym®Web Site,” 2005) heading reads “Learn ANY-
THING Faster and More Easily,” and the Web site bookstore
includes books and articles touting the benefits of Brain
Gym® for golf, sales, surfing, attention-deficit/hyperactivity
disorder, emotional disturbance, fetal alcohol syndrome,
learning disabilities, Alzheimer disease, salesmanship, sports,
and senior moments. Although neither the theoretical founda-
tion nor the peer-reviewed research base supported the claims
of Brain Gym®, the slick marketing approach made it appear
that Brain Gym® could provide the cure to all that ails
humankind.
Silver (1995) and the American Academy of Pediatrics
(1999) noted that research results should be provided in peer-
reviewed journals and cautioned against placing much faith
in research from organizations that claim to have “the cure.”
The advocates of Brain Gym® have not followed through on
this advice and appear to base the majority of their claims on
testimonial evidence or on research so seriously flawed that
its findings are essentially meaningless. Persuasive testimoni-
als are not sound scientific evidence and should not be the
basis on which interventions for children with learning diffi-
culties are selected.
The American Academy of Pediatrics (1999) noted that
the new generation of pediatricians may be unaware of pro-
grams such as Doman-Delacato’s repatterning and should re-
ceive instruction on those programs to avoid repeating the
mistakes of the past. It appears that this advice would also
apply to educators. For example, Nolan (2004) stated that
Doman-Delacato’s repatterning was still considered valid,
and Reynolds, Nicolson, and Hambly (2003) wrote an article
touting the academic benefits of a perceptual–motor training
that included using a balance board, throwing and catching
bean bags, and stretching activities as treatments for reading
difficulties. They did not provide specifics of the training, be-
cause it was considered “commercially sensitive” (Reynolds
et al., 2003, p. 55). However, Snowling and Hulme (2003)
provided a well-written critique of these claims and noted
that there was no evidence that this intervention, shrouded
under the guise of “commercial sensitivity,” was an effective
treatment for children with reading difficulties.
It is time that educators and educational training
institutes—whether university or other entity—ensure that
practices such as Brain Gym® that have no substantive theo-
retical or research support are no longer used with children in
the hope of ameliorating a learning problem. When writing
about Brain Gym®, Goldacre (2003), a reporter for a British
newspaper, stated the following: “In an ideal world, we
would be teaching children enough science in school that
they were able to stand up to a teacher who was spouting this
kind of rubbish” (p. 3). It is indeed disheartening that many
educators have not been as adept at spotting rubbish as was
this newspaper reporter when, after all, educators have the re-
sponsibility of ensuring that school days are filled with mean-
ingful learning activities.
This responsibility requires that school personnel take
the time to critically review instructional programs and select
those that have sound, objective research support. As advo-
cated by Stanovich and Stanovich (1997), researchers should
ensure they have an understanding of the typical tasks re-
quired of teachers and translate their research findings into a
format useful to teachers. Furthermore, teacher training pro-
grams should provide prospective teachers with the skills
needed for evaluating research. These skills include a recog-
nition that quality research results are most likely found in
scientific, peer-reviewed journals, an understanding of the
importance of replication of studies, and knowledge of whether
the research community has determined that there have been
enough studies to either validate or refute a particular ap-
proach. Satisfaction of these criteria would be an indicator
that a particular instructional practice did incorporate scien-
tific, research-based methods.
The theories and practices reviewed in this article are all
deficit based, with the goal of identifying a particular intra-
individual deficit that would explain learning problems. The
deficit-based explanation tends to place blame on the child
for his or her learning problems and provides the teacher with
an excuse for failing to implement sound academic instruc-
tional strategies. An example of a more enlightened approach
that actually does include scientific, research-based strategies
would be to use a curriculum-based evaluation procedure. A
detailed description of such an approach that uses formative
assessment results to monitor and guide student instruction
has been provided by Howell and Nolet (2000) and Howell,
Hosp, and Hosp (in press).
In closing, if teachers are to use scientific, research-
based practices to the maximum extent, they must have ade-
quate training for interpreting research and be aware of past
fads that never seem to pass. The following observation by
Mann in 1979 was meant to describe the state of process
training and academic instruction, but it appears to be just as
pertinent some 25 years later, because it highlights the neces-
sity of ensuring that future educators and interventionists un-
derstand the history of their field, lest they be duped into
implementing practices devoid of research support:
Process training has always made the phoenix
look like a bedraggled sparrow. You cannot kill
it. It simply bides its time in exile after being
dislodged by one of history’s periodic attacks
upon it and then returns, wearing disguises or
carrying new noms de plume, as it were, but
consisting of the same old ideas, doing business
much in the same old way. (p. 539)

KEITH J. HYATT, EdD, is an assistant professor of special education at
Western Washington University. His interests include special education law,
inclusion, and early childhood special education. Address: Keith J. Hyatt,
Department of Special Education, Western Washington University, 516
High Street, MS 9090, Bellingham, WA 98225-9090; e-mail: keith.hyatt@
wwu.edu
REFERENCES
American Academy of Pediatrics. (1968). The Doman-Delacato treatment of
neurologically handicapped children. Neurology, 18, 1214–1215.
American Academy of Pediatrics. (1998). Learning disabilities, dyslexia, and
vision: A subject review [Electronic version]. Pediatrics, 103, 1217–
1219.
American Academy of Pediatrics. (1999). The treatment of neurologically
impaired children using patterning [Electronic version]. Pediatrics, 104,
1149–1151.
Arter, J. A., & Jenkins, J. R. (1979). Differential diagnosis—prescriptive
teaching: A critical appraisal. Review of Educational Research, 49, 517–
555.
Barsch, R. H. (1967). Achieving perceptual–motor efficiency: A space-
oriented approach to learning (Perceptual motor curriculum, Vol. 1).
Seattle, WA: Special Child. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED018901)
Berliner, D. C., & Biddle, B. J. (1995). The manufactured crisis: Myths,
fraud, and the attack on America’s public schools. New York: Perseus.
Bochner, S. (1978). Ayres, sensory integration and learning disorders: A
question of theory and practice. Australian Journal of Mental Retarda-
tion, 5(2), 41–45.
Bracey, G. W. (2002). The war against America’s public schools: Privatizing
schools, commercializing education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Braingym.com (2005). Retrieved October 7, 2005, from http://www
.braingym.com/
Browder, D. M., & Cooper-Duffy, K. (2003). Evidence-based practices for
students with severe disabilities and the requirement for accountability
in No Child Left Behind. The Journal of Special Education, 37, 157–
163.
Bruer, J. T. (1999). In search of... brain-based education. Phi Delta Kappa
International. Retrieved March 4, 2006, from http://www.pdkintl.org/
kappan/kbru9905.htm
Bruer, J. T. (2004). The brain and child development: Time for some critical
thinking. In E. Zigler & S. J. Styfco (Eds.), The Head Start debates
(pp. 423–434). Baltimore: Brookes.
Cammisa, K. M. (1994). Educational kinesiology with learning disabled
children: An efficacy study. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 78, 105–106.
R E M E D I A L A N D S P E C I A L E D U C A T I O N
123
Volume 28, Number 2, March/April 2007
Chaker, A. M. (2005, April 6). U.S. kids get new therapies to aid in learning.
The Wall Street Journal Europe, p. A.8.
Cohen, S. A. (1969). Studies in visual perception and reading in disadvan-
taged children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 2, 498–507.
Crain, W. (2000). Theories of development: Concepts and applications (4th
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
De los Santos, G. (2002). Improving the faculty’s effectiveness in increasing
the success of Hispanic students in higher education—Pronto. Journal of
Hispanic Higher Education, 1, 225–237.
Dennison, P. E., & Dennison, G. E. (1994). Brain Gym® teacher’s edition–-
Revised. Ventura, CA: Edu-Kinesthetics.
Doman, C. H. (1968). The diagnosis and treatment of speech and reading
problems. Springfield, IL: Thomas.
Goldacre, B. (2003, June 12). Life: Bad science. The Guardian. Retrieved
January 21, 2004, from the ProQuest Newspapers database; http://
proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.library.wwu.edu/pqdweb?index=0&did=346
708701&SrchMode=1&sid=2&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&
RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1166556140&clientId=9320#fulltext
Hallahan, D. P., & Mercer, C. D. (Aug., 2001). Learning disabilities: His-
torical perspectives. Paper presented at the U.S. Office of Special
Education Program’s National Initiative on Learning Disabilities, Wash-
ington, DC.
Hammill, D., Goodman, L., & Wiederholt, J. L. (1974). Visual–motor
processes: Can we train them? The Reading Teacher, 27, 469–478.
Hannaford, C. (1996). Smart moves. Learning, 25(3), 66–68.
Howell, K. W., & Nolet, V. (2000). Curriculum-based evaluation: Teaching
and decision making (3rd ed.). Atlanta, GA: Wadsworth.
Howell, K. W., Hosp, J. L., & Hosp, M. K. (in press). Curriculum-based
evaluation: Teaching and decision making (4th ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
Hynd, G. W., & Semrud-Clikeman, M. (1989). Dyslexia and brain morphol-
ogy. Psychological Bulletin, 3, 447–482.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C.
§ 1400 et seq. (2004) (reauthorization of Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act of 1990)
Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (1987). Substance over style: Assessing the
efficacy of modality testing and teaching. Exceptional Children, 54,
228–239.
Kavale, K. A., & Mattson, P. D. (1983). “One jumped off the balance beam”:
Meta-analysis of perceptual–motor training. Journal of Learning Dis-
abilities, 16, 165–173.
Keogh, B. K., & Pelland, M. (1985). Vision training revisited. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 18, 228–236.
Khalsa, G. K., Morris, G. S. D., & Sifft, J. M. (1988). Effect of educational
kinesiology on static balance of learning disabled students. Perceptual
and Motor Skills, 67, 51–54.
Liberman, Y., Shankweiler, D., Orlando, C., Harris, K. S., & Bell Berti, F.
(1971). Letter confusions and reversals of sequence in the beginning
reader: Implications for Orton’s theory of developmental dyslexia. Cor-
tex, 7, 127–142.
MacKay, D. N., Gollogly, J., & McDonald, G. (1986). The Doman-Delacato
treatment methods: I. Principles of neurological organization. The Brit-
ish Journal of Mental Subnormality, 32, 3–19.
Mann, L. (1979). On the trail of process. New York: Grune & Stratton.
Mayringer, H., & Wimmer, H. (2002). No deficits at the point of hemispheric
indecision. Neuropsychologia, 40, 701–704.
Moats, L. C., & Farrell, M. L. (2005). Multisensory structured language ed-
ucation. In J. R. Birsch (Ed.), Multisensory teaching of basic language
skills (2nd ed., pp. 23–41). Baltimore: Brookes.
Mohan, A., Singh, A. P., & Mandal, M. K. (2001). Transfer and interference
of motor skills in people with intellectual disability. Journal of Intellec-
tual Disability Research, 45, 361–369.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk:
The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: Author. Re-
trieved October 7, 2005, from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/
index.html
124 R E M E D I A L A N D S P E C I A L E D U C A T I O N
Volume 28, Number 2, March/April 2007
Nolan, J. (2004). Analysis of Kavale and Mattson’s “balance beam” study
(1983): Criteria for selection of articles. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 99,
63–82.
Novella, S. (1996). Psychomotor patterning. The Connecticut Skeptic, 1(4).
Retrieved October 7, 2005, from http://www.srmhp.org/archives/
patterning.html
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq.
Oakland, T., Black, J. L., Stanford, G., Nussbaum, N. L., & Balise, R. R.
(1998). The evaluation of the dyslexia training program: A multisensory
method for promoting reading in students with reading disabilities. Jour-
nal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 140–147.
Official Brain Gym® Web Site. (2005). Retrieved October 2, 2005, from
http://www.braingym.org/
Ormrod, J. E. (2004). Human learning (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson.
Orton, S. T. (1937). Reading, writing and speech problems in children. New
York: Norton.
Pipe, M. E. (1988). Atypical laterality and retardation. Psychological Bul-
letin, 104, 343–347.
Ratliff, M. (2005, April 28). Building bridges in brain gym: Brantwood
program helps kids connect left, right sides of brain, improve reading.
Dayton Daily News, p. Z.5.1. Retrieved May 14, 2005, from http://
proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.library.wwu.edu/pqdweb?index=2&did=
829002671&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=
PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1166556026&clientId=9320#
fulltext
Reynolds, D., Nicolson, R. I., & Hambly, H. (2003). Evaluation of an exer-
cise-based treatment for children with reading difficulties. Dyslexia, 9,
48–71.
Robbins, M. (1966). The Delacato interpretation of neurological organiza-
tion. Reading Research Quarterly, 3, 57–78.
Salvia, J., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (2004). Assessment in special and inclusive
education (9th ed.). New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Seger, C. A., Poldrack, R. A., Prabhakaran, V., Zhao, M., Glover, G. H., &
Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2000). Hemispheric asymmetries and individual dif-
ferences in visual concept learning as measured by functional MRI.
Neuropsychologia, 18, 1316–1324.
Sheffield, B. B. (1991). The structured flexibility of Orton-Gillingham. An-
nals of Dyslexia, 41, 41–54.
Sieban, R. L. (1977). Controversial medical treatments of learning disabili-
ties. Academic Therapy, 13, 133–147.
Sifft, J. M., & Khalsa, G. C. K. (1991). Effect of educational kinesiology
upon simple response times and choice response times. Perceptual and
Motor Skills, 73, 1011–1015.
Silver, L. B. (1995). Controversial therapies. Journal of Child Neurology, 10,
96–100.
Snowling, M. J., & Hulme, C. (2003). A critique of claims from Reynolds,
Nicolson & Hambly (2003) that DDAT is an effective treatment for chil-
dren with reading difficulties—‘Lies, damned lies and (inappropriate)
statistics?’ Dyslexia, 9, 127–133.
Stanovich, K. E. (1985). Explaining the variance in reading ability in terms
of psychological processes: What have we learned? Annals of Dyslexia,
35 67–96.
Stanovich, P. J., & Stanovich, K. E. (1997). Research into practice in special
education. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 477–481.
Stone, M., & Pielstick, N. L. (1969). Effectiveness of Delacato treatment
with kindergarten children. Psychology in the Schools, 6, 63–68.
Sullivan, J. (1972). The effects of Kephart’s perceptual motor-training on a
reading clinic sample. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 5(10), 32–38.
Thorndike, R. M. (2005). Measurement and evaluation in psychology and
education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Wolfsont, C. (2002). Increasing behavioral skills and level of understanding
in adults: A brief method integrating Dennison’s brain gym balance with
Piaget’s reflective processes. Journal of Adult Development, 9, 187–202.
View publication stats