Effect of Interactive Metronome® Training on Elementary School Students
Jose E. Coll, Ph.D. and M.S.W.
Assistant Professor
School of Education and Social Services
Department of Social Work
Saint Leo University
Lee A. Teufel
Assistant Professor
Director of Training, Counseling Programs
Argosy University/Tampa
Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie, Ph.D., P.G.C.E., F.S.S.
Professor
College of Education
Sam Houston State University
E-mail: tonyonwuegbuzie@aol.com
Increasing attention and policy decisions are made on the issues of developmentally appropriate curriculum to enhance the learning of young children. Specifically, federal initiatives—for example, “No Child Left Behind”— employ narrow criteria for “school-readiness” (McAllister, Wilson, Green, & Baldwin, 2005), creating an environment of high pressure learning and development at an earlier age. However, it is imperative that educators do not forget that early learning consists of various stages that are supported by developmental tasks that include but are not limited to the development of sensory and fine motor skills. Cassily and Jacokes (2001) state that these developmental tasks are met through a multidimensional learning environment that consists of physical, social, emotional, and cognitive development. It is believed that each developmental dimension influences the other, an intertwined and interdependent process that influences the development of the other (Hostetler, 1992). Moreover, it is important to understand and recognize the importance of play, movement, and active involvement in sensory and motor development and its role in child development. For instance, sensory integration is an important factor in developing and influencing cognitive and language skills, which enhance cognitive growth (Puckett & Black, 1999). When children do develop basic rhythmic coordination, they show a significant difference in three skill areas: (a) musical skills; (b) motor skills; and (c) academic performance, considerably in the areas of reading, language arts, and mathematics (Weikart, 1998).
A child’s early developmental experiences are critical factors to his/her ability to think and apply academic skills in future settings (Ramey & Ramey, 2004). A child must be able to link together appropriately early experiences that are essential components to enter school “ready to learn.” Numerous researchers (e.g., Bartscherer & Dole, 2005; Pless, Carlsson, Sundelin, & Person, 2001) have documented that children learn through basic dimensions that include physical, social, emotional, and cognitive components. Thus, it is indicative that children are equipped with the sensory and rhythmic competence at an early age to later apply these dimensions of learning.
Interactive Metronome
Interactive Metronome® (IM) is an instrument developed to provide a systematic method of improving timing, coordination, and rhythm through one’s own cognitive process (Koomar et al., 2000). In particular, it can be used to coordinate motor planning and sequencing (IM, 2004). This instrument is a computerized sensory interactive program that operates similarly to a musical metronome, and which enhances individual sensory skills. The IM is believed to improve cognitive abilities. It is theorized that, via modern technology, the IM allows for unique real-time testing and teaching capabilities of the functions in the central nervous system involved in motor regulation (IM, 2004). The IM involves guiding the user in the performance of a series of indicated movements; by the tapping motion of each limb (hands and/or feet) the training takes place (Shaffer et al., 2001). Shaffer et al. (2001) highlight the potential for an interactive version of metronome in improving timing and rhythmicity with regards to motor planning and sequencing, in addition to a wide range of clinical conditions, such as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). The learning process, with the assistance of IM, is made possible by the focus, devoid of interruption, on a steady beat in actual time spent controlling basic mental functions (IM, 2004). Koomer et al. (2000) contend that IM is useful in occupational therapeutic practice via the sensory integrative approach.
Often, children with sensory integrative dysfunction have limited sensory experience and lack normal motor control, and using an approach that integrates the needs of the child appears to be clinically affective. Unfortunately, with the exception of limited studies reported by the instrument developer, little is known about the efficacy of IM as a method of improving sensory integration (IM, 2004). IM has been used with Sensory Integration Disorder, Autism Spectrum Disorder, Cerebral Palsy (Jones, 2005), Non-Verbal Learning Disorder, ADD/ADHD (Bartscherer & Dole, 2005), and trials and reported a wide range of measurable results with the following areas: attention and concentration, motor control and coordination, cognitive processing, reading and math fluency, and control of aggression/impulsivity. Thus, this investigation sought to assess the extent to which IM is a viable instrument in addressing integrated attention and motor skills among elementary age students. The researcher’s first hypothesis was that IM increases overall sensory motor skills. The second hypothesis was that IM increases sensory motor skills using hands. The third hypothesis was that IM increases sensory motor skills using feet.
Method
Participants
The sample consisted of 27 students from a private elementary school in the southeastern region of the United States. The distribution of participants was as follows: female (n = 4), male (n = 23), Caucasian (n = 10), Hispanic (n = 10), and African American (n = 7). Academic grade distribution was as follows: 2nd (n = 3), 3rd (n =2), 4th (n = 2), 5th (n = 1), 6th (n = 4), 7th (n = 6), and 8th (n = 9). Data for this research were collected via a survey that was administered in the fall of 2004. Permission to conduct the study was obtained from the Institutional Review Board (IRB). A consent form was provided to all participants and parents. A demographic sheet also was included.
Instrument and Procedures
The instrument used to measure integrated attention and timing coordination was the IM. The instrument is designed to assess individual sensory, timing, cognitive, and motor skills via movement tasks that are measured and directed by an underlying beat through a computer. Like previous programs, IM’s approach uses motor skill process training and sequencing to tune internal rhythmic senses. The use of computer programs and sensory integration training allows for accurate recording of specific performed movements and timing within milliseconds (Cassily & Jacokes, 2001). Participants are tested in groups of four during the course of five weeks. The IM intervention consists of each student being assigned to a computer station and assisted by an authorized IM technician. The IM program consists of a standard protocol of 12 one-hour sessions performed three to five times per week under trained supervision. Students are required to synchronize seven basic movements (repetitions) to a fundamental beat provided by a computer and received through headphones. Participants find that progress becomes increasingly challenging due to a continuous testing process and increasing repetitions that may provide a significant difference in the child’s ability to increase motor and sensory response (Koomar et al., 2000), thereby requiring attention. The following represents the seven tasks used to measure integrated attention.
- Both Hands –Session 1 and Session 2 participants conduct warm ups that consist of 400 repetitions.
- Both Hands – Session 2 participant conduct 300 repetitions (clapping).
- Right Hand – Session 3 participants conduct 200 repetitions (tapping) on right thigh.
- Left Hand – Session 4 participants conduct 200 repetitions (tapping) on left thigh.
- Both Toes – In this exercise the student is using the sensory pad that is located on the floor. The student is to tap both toes for 300 repetitions.
- Right Toe – Session 6 participants (tapping) right foot on floor pad--200 repetitions.
- Left Toe – Session 7 participants (tapping) left foot on floor pad--200 repetitions.
A series of pre- and post-test score comparisons was conducted via paired samples t-tests. Bonferroni’s adjustment was used to control for Type I error. Specifically, a Bonferroni-adjusted α–level of .0167 (i.e., .05/3) was used to take into account the fact that three hypotheses were tested.
Results
With respect to the first hypothesis, the paired samples t-test revealed that the milliseconds (Ms) post-test scores (M = 37.05, SD = 13.231) were statistically significantly lower (t = 6.23, df = 26, p < .001) than were the Ms pre-test scores (M = 109.99, SD = 65.770). Lower scores represent an increase in sensory motor skills (i.e., desired outcome). The effect size associated with this difference, as measured by Cohen’s (1988) d was 1.11. Using Cohen’s (1988) criteria, this represents a very large effect size.
With regard to the second hypothesis, the hands Ms post-test scores (M = 28.73, SD = 11.54) were statistically significantly lower (t = 6.01, df = 26, p < .001) than were the hands Ms pre-test scores (M = 120.07, SD = 85.61). The effect size (d = 1.06) associated with this difference was very large.
The third hypothesis related to feet. The feet Ms post-test scores (M = 45.74, SD = 17.58) were statistically significantly lower (t = 6.14, df = 26, p < .001) than were the feet Ms pre-test scores (M = 100.33, SD = 49.43). The effect size (d = 1.47) associated with this difference was extremely large.
Discussion
Driven by the increasing importance of early learning and school readiness, the purpose of this study was to measure and compare the effectiveness of an interactive computer program in enhancing attention and motor skills of young children. A series of paired samples t-tests revealed statistically significant increases in overall sensory motor skills, sensory motor skills using the hands, and sensory motor skills using the feet. Each of these increases was practically significant, with very large effect sizes. These findings suggest that by using the IM or a similar sensory integration program children can increase their motor skills and sensory abilities and significantly decrease their delay responses. This finding is consistent with Shaffer et al. (2001), who demonstrated the potential highlights of using interactive metronome as a means of improving timing and rhythmicity.
Recognizing fine motor development can assist educators and influence future cognitive, perceptual, and language skills in elementary age children; children who do not experience appropriate physical activities may become delayed cognitively (Haywood, 1986). The importance of these observations is supported by Pica (1990), who observed that children who possess the ability to translate rhythmic competency tend to achieve higher levels of performance on standardized achievement tests. Furthermore, children who develop basic rhythmic coordination show a significant difference in three skill areas: (a) musical skills, (b) motor skills, and (c) academic performance, considerably in the areas of reading, language arts, and mathematics (Puckett & Black, 1999; Weikart, 1998).
Rhythmic competence and sensory integration is important in the ability to move, express, and maintain a beat requiring timing and coordination (Liemohn, Hargis, & Wrisberg, 1990). Thomas and Moon (1976) contend that rhythm, timing, and smoothness are essential in the development of motor skills. The findings indicate that student scores in adjusted millisecond average pre-test had a means difference of 109.99 Ms and an adjusted millisecond average post-test means difference of 37.05 Ms. These findings may indicate an effectiveness of the IM training. The ability for a child to respond appropriately in the classroom and increase his/her attention can be significant in terms of early learning and readiness for school. Moreover, in a society that measures a student’s ability through comprehensive timed examinations, the ability for a child to sit and concentrate on a repetitive motion may represent the difference between a positive and negative early academic experience.
Conclusion
Understanding the role of sensory integrative dysfunction among children who either experience or have limited sensory motor control needs further research. In particular, the use of interactive approaches as a means of promoting development among elementary age students should be the subject of future research. As noted in various studies, early developmental experiences of children are a critical factor in their ability to function successfully in various academic settings (Ramey & Ramey, 2004). In an attempt to increase academic performance among elementary school students, federal standards and policies such as “No Child Left Behind” have led to less importance being attached to the role of play, movement, and active involvement in sensory and motor skills in children’s development. With the decrease of out-of-classroom activities, there likely will be a demand and need for an innovative method of increasing sensory integration in the classroom space. Thus, the present study has added to the sparse body of literature in this area by documenting the efficacy of IM.
References
Bartscherer, M. L., & Dole, R. L. (2005). Interactive Metronome® training for a 9-year-old boy with attention and motor coordination difficulties. Physiotherapy Theory and Practice, 21, 257-269.
Cassily, J. F., & Jacokes, L. E. (2001). The interactive metronome: A new computer based technology to measure and improve timing, rhythmicity, motor planning, sequencing, and cognitive capabilities. Retrieved June 18, 2006, from http://www.interactivemetronome.com
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Haywood, K.M. (1986). Life span motor development. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc.
Hostetler, L. (1992). Healthy minds, healthy bodies, and healthy environments: Our goal one for children. The Journal of Young Children, 47(1), 57-58.
Interactive Metronome. (2004). Innovative technologies for improving human performance. Retrieved February 3, 2007, from http://www.interactivemetronome.com/im/parents.asp
Jones, L. (2005). The Interactive Metronome®. The Autism Perspective, 4(1), 38-39.
Koomar, J., Burpee, J. D., DeJean, V. Frick, S., Kawar, M. J., Fischer, D. M. (2000). Theoretical and clinical perspective on the interactive metronome: A view from occupational therapy practice. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 55, 163-166.
Liemohn, W., Hargis, C. H., & Wrisberg, C. A. (1990). Rhythm production/perception by learning impaired students. The Volta Review, 92, 13-24.
McAllister, C. L., Wilson, P. C., Green, B. L., & Baldwin, J. L., (2005). “Come and Talk a Walk”: Listening to early Head Start parents on school-readiness as a matter of child, family, and community health. American Journal of Public Health, 95, 617-625.
Pica, R. (1990). Preeschoolers moving and learning. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetic.
Pless, M., Carlsson, M., Sundelin, C., & Person, K. (2001). Pre-school children with developmental co-ordination disorder: self-perceived competence and group motor skill intervention. Acta Paediatrica, 90, 532-538.
Puckett, M. B., & Black, J. K. (1999). Authentic assessment of the young child: Celebrating development and learning. New York, NY.
Ramey, C. T., & Ramey, S. L. (2004). Early learning and school readiness: Can early intervention make a difference? Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 50, 471-491.
Shaffer, R. J., Jacokes, L. E., Cassily, J. F., Greenspan, S. I ., Ruchman, R. F., & Stemmer, P. J., Jr. (2001). Effect of Interactive Metronome® training on children with ADHD. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 55, 155-162.
Thomas, J. R., & Moon, D. H. (1976). Measuring motor rhythmic ability in children. Research Quarterly of the American Association for Health, Physical Education, and Recreation, 47, 20-32.
Weikart, P. (1998). Teaching movement and dance: A sequential approach to rhythmic movement. Ypsilantii, MI: High/Scope Press.
You are invited to join AE Extra staff!
Send your ideas and/or writing sample
to the Editor-in-chief:
Elizabeth Haller
Kent State University (e-mail: editoraee@hotmail.com)
Academic Exchange Extra invites reader response to any writings in this issue--especially articles advancing the scholarly debate of issues raised.
