Start Free Trial

What Studies Found About Movement and Coordination

By · Reviewed by Philip Weaver · Last reviewed

This page sums up the movement and coordination research we hold. It covers what coordination training improves, and two martial-arts trials. It also covers whether movement improves reading, writing or math. Most findings name their study. Then it says what the research we hold does not show. Then it lists questions we plan to answer on later pages.

TL;DR

  1. This page sums up the movement and coordination research we hold, area by area. Most findings name their study.
  2. One review pooled 106 studies of training the body's sense of position and movement (Seo and colleagues, 2023). Training aimed at that sense improved it more than other training or none. Every study in it was of adults. The reviewers found no study that trained one such task and tested a different one.
  3. Movement builds movement, and on its own it has not been shown to build reading or writing. Handwriting improves most consistently with handwriting practice; motor work alone has not been shown to improve it.
  4. One study taught letters through movement in grade 1 classes (Botha and Africa, 2026). Children formed letters with their bodies and with ropes, and drew big letters. Their reading and spelling improved more than in classes that did not do this. The classes were not assigned at random. The other classes did no other activity. The other classes also read better at the start. So the movement classes had more room to gain. That study taught letters. It is not evidence that movement on its own helps reading.
  5. Ng-Knight and colleagues (2022; online 2021) ran the better controlled of the two martial-arts trials we hold. They randomized children one by one. The assessors did not know which group a child was in. Attention improved, and conduct problems fell. What carried the gain in teacher-rated attention was the children coming to value the activity. It was not a gain in executive function.

What the movement research we hold covers

This page opens one of the ten areas in our research section. It reports what the studies we hold found, as strongly as they found it.

This page covers what coordination training improves, and how motor skill and thinking go together. It also covers movement and attention, two martial-arts trials, and movement and schoolwork. Last, it covers motor skills in children with dyslexia.

Read what a study does not show before you read what it found.

What coordination training improves

This part covers training the body's sense of position and movement.

One review pooled 106 studies of training the body's sense of position and movement (Seo and colleagues, 2023). Training aimed at that sense improved it more than other training or none. Every study in it was of adults. The reviewers found no study that trained one such task and tested a different one. So even carry-over from one body-sense task to another has not been tested directly.

Motor skill and thinking

This part covers studies of motor skill and thinking in children.

One review pooled 37 studies of children and teens aged 5 to 18 (Bao and colleagues, 2024). Better motor skill went with slightly better executive function. Most of the studies looked at one point in time. Its authors say the few experiments limit what it can show about cause.

Another review pooled 118 studies of fine motor skill in children and teens (Suggate and colleagues, 2025). Fine motor skill went together with academic and thinking skills. The link was largest between pen control and writing. Its authors say they cannot tell whether one causes the other.

Handwriting improves most consistently with handwriting practice; motor work alone has not been shown to improve it.

One session of movement, and attention

This part covers single sessions of exercise and attention tests.

Budde and colleagues (2008) ran an experiment on movement and attention. They compared ten minutes of coordinative exercise with a regular physical education lesson. They used an attention test, and heart rate was matched. The coordinative session came out ahead. Ninety-nine teenagers were analyzed. They were 13 to 16 years old, at an elite performance school. It was one session, with no resting comparison.

Two later trials did not find the coordinative advantage Budde found. Van den Berg and colleagues (2016) ran the closest thing there is to a test of Budde's dose. It was twelve minutes, not ten. They found no effect of any kind of exercise. Altermann and Gröpel (2023) found that endurance, strength and coordination all improved attention on the same test. Coordination had no advantage. That trial never measured heart rate. So it does not test what made Budde's study interesting. Its one comparison at matched effort also found no difference. Whether the coordinative kind does better has not been properly retested since 2008. The idea is not disconfirmed, and it is not supported.

Two martial-arts trials

This part covers two trials of martial-arts classes for children.

Whether movement programs help with math is not settled in the studies we hold.

Lakes and Hoyt (2004) compared three months of school taekwondo with ordinary physical education. Whole classes, not single children, were assigned at random. Self-control and arithmetic improved more in the taekwondo classes. The observers did not know which group a child was in. The teachers who rated the children did know.

Ng-Knight and colleagues (2022; online 2021) ran the better controlled of the two martial-arts trials we hold. They randomized children one by one. The assessors did not know which group a child was in. Attention improved, and conduct problems fell. What carried the gain in teacher-rated attention was the children coming to value the activity. It was not a gain in executive function.

The trial found no improvement in response inhibition, working memory, task switching or impulsivity.

Movement, reading, writing and math

This part covers studies of movement programs and schoolwork.

One large trial assigned the classes of 856 children at random (Meijer and colleagues, 2021; online 2020). The children did aerobic exercise or thinking-heavy exercise four times a week for 14 weeks. Other classes had ordinary physical education. The trial measured executive function. It found no differences on any of its measures.

One review pooled 92 trials of physical activity programs for children aged 5 to 12 (Vasilopoulos and colleagues, 2023). It found no overall gain in school achievement.

Bishop (2007) looked at the case made for one commercial program of motor exercises for dyslexia. Bishop found no evidence that training motor coordination could change higher-level skills. A re-analysis by Rack and colleagues (2007) reached the same conclusion.

One review looked at 22 trials of help for children with reading disabilities (Galuschka and colleagues, 2014). Phonics teaching was the only approach it confirmed for reading and spelling. The other approaches had far fewer trials. So their results are partly thin evidence, not proof they do not work. Motor exercises were one of those other approaches.

One study taught letters through movement in grade 1 classes (Botha and Africa, 2026). Children formed letters with their bodies and with ropes, and drew big letters. Their reading and spelling improved more than in classes that did not do this. The classes were not assigned at random. The other classes did no other activity. The other classes also read better at the start. So the movement classes had more room to gain. That study taught letters. It is not evidence that movement on its own helps reading.

Movement builds movement, and on its own it has not been shown to build reading or writing.

Handwriting improves most consistently with handwriting practice; motor work alone has not been shown to improve it.

For math, the studies we hold point both ways. Lakes and Hoyt's taekwondo trial found a gain in arithmetic. The review by Vasilopoulos and colleagues found no overall gain in school achievement.

Motor skills in children with dyslexia

This part covers studies of motor skills in children with dyslexia.

Movement builds movement, and on its own it has not been shown to build reading or writing.

One review pooled 23 studies of motor skills in children and teens with dyslexia (Decarli and colleagues, 2024). As a group, the children and teens with dyslexia did differently on several motor tasks. It compared groups, so it does not show a cause.

A small study found no motor differences between children with and without dyslexia (Kaltner and Jansen, 2014).

What the movement research we hold does not show

This part covers the limits of the studies on this page.

No study of any Learning Success program exists.

Movement builds movement, and on its own it has not been shown to build reading or writing.

Handwriting improves most consistently with handwriting practice; motor work alone has not been shown to improve it.

Whether movement programs help with math is not settled in the studies we hold.

No study we hold tests whether coordination trouble causes trouble with reading, writing or math.

Our rule is that no page says how your child will change by a given week or month.

Does Learning Success build on this?

Partly. We use one point from this page. Movement builds movement, and on its own it has not been shown to build reading or writing. Some of our programs include coordination and body-awareness movements. Coordination practice builds coordination, and that is what these exercises train.

In no case do we claim a study's result for our program.

No study of any Learning Success program exists.

Questions we plan to answer on later pages

Later pages in this area are planned. None of them is written yet.

The studies

“

Pick one claim you have heard about movement and learning. Ask what was measured. Was it the movement itself, or reading, writing or math? Keep that answer in mind before you choose an exercise.

”What to do tonight

Common questions from parents

Has movement been shown to improve reading?

Movement builds movement, and on its own it has not been shown to build reading or writing. One study taught letters through movement in grade 1 classes (Botha and Africa, 2026). Children formed letters with their bodies and with ropes, and drew big letters. Their reading and spelling improved more than in classes that did not do this. The classes were not assigned at random. The other classes did no other activity. The other classes also read better at the start. So the movement classes had more room to gain. That study taught letters. It is not evidence that movement on its own helps reading. Reading improves with reading instruction.

Do children with better motor skills do better at school?

One review pooled 37 studies of children and teens aged 5 to 18 (Bao and colleagues, 2024). Better motor skill went with slightly better executive function. Most of the studies looked at one point in time. Its authors say the few experiments limit what it can show about cause. Another review pooled 118 studies of fine motor skill in children and teens (Suggate and colleagues, 2025). Fine motor skill went together with academic and thinking skills. The link was largest between pen control and writing. Its authors say they cannot tell whether one causes the other. Handwriting improves most consistently with handwriting practice; motor work alone has not been shown to improve it.

What carried the gain in the better controlled martial-arts trial?

Ng-Knight and colleagues (2022; online 2021) ran the better controlled of the two martial-arts trials we hold. They randomized children one by one. The assessors did not know which group a child was in. Attention improved, and conduct problems fell. What carried the gain in teacher-rated attention was the children coming to value the activity. It was not a gain in executive function.

More in Research by area