A Review of Three Controversial Educational Practices: Perceptual Motor Programs, Sensory Integration, and Tinted Lenses

Relationships between Motor Proficiency and Academic Performance in Mathematics and Reading in School-Aged Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review

“…Appropriate statistical analyses for reporting associations included correlations and regression or structural equation modelling. For experimental studies, the pre-test and post-test values of motor proficiency and academic outcomes in mathematics and reading for both control and experimental groups or a measure of treatment effect on academic performance needed to be reported.Studies had to be either observational or experimental in design.Studies had to have been published after January 2000, due to the methodological limitations in studies published prior to 2000 previously described [18,19]. …”

“…Over several decades, researchers have reviewed the impacts of perceptual motor programs on the academic performance of school students, providing inconsistent findings and insufficient evidence, as many of the studies had notable methodological flaws [18,19]. Perceptual motor skills require the integration of sensory input (visual, auditory, and kinaesthetic) with fine or gross motor responses [19].…”

“…Perceptual motor skills require the integration of sensory input (visual, auditory, and kinaesthetic) with fine or gross motor responses [19]. More recently, the focus has shifted to investigating the relationship between fine motor skills and academic performance, given emerging findings that fine motor skills may be a significant indicator for school readiness [20,21].…”

Factors in Instructional Decision-Making, Ratings of Evidence and Intended Instructional Practices of Australian Final Year Teacher Education Students

“…In addition, for all practices, combined very strong and strong ratings exceeded neutral ratings, in most cases by a very wide margin. The belief that instructional practices were effective extended to practices that have consistently weak research support such as perceptual motor programs (Hyatt, Stephenson, & Carter, 2009;Kavale & Mattson, 1983) and modality-based learning styles instruction (Kavale & Forness, 1987;Pashler et al, 2008;Landrum & McDuffie, 2010).…”

The Use of Sensory Integration Therapy by Intervention Service Providers in Malaysia

“…SI therapy has, however, been subject to ongoing controversy. While there have been some dissenting opinions (May-Benson & Koomar, 2010;Ottenbacher, 1982), a large number of reviews (see Arendt, MacLean, & Baumeister, 1988;Baranek, 2002;Dawson & Watling, 2000;Hoehn & Baumeister, 1994;Hyatt, Stephenson, & Carter, 2009;Leong & Carter, 2008;Loftus & Mackworth, 1978; Maine Administrators of Services for Children with Disabilities, 2000;Myers & Johnson, 2007;National Autism Center, 2009;National Research Council, 2001;New York State Department of Health, 1999;Ospina et al, 2008;Perry & Condillac, 2003;Roberts, 2004;Roberts & Prior, 2006;Shaw, 2002;Simpson, 2005;Smith, Mruzek, & Mozingo, 2005;Vargas & Camilli, 1999) have concluded that there is little empirical evidence demonstrating positive effects of SI therapy on people with various disabilities and developmental delays. Drawing on the findings of reviews, the American Association of Pediatrics stated that: occupational therapy using sensory integration techniques to address sensory processing problems is commonly used in children with ASD [Autism Spectrum Disorder].…”