Evaluating the Evidence for Fidget Toys in the Classroom

Evidence on the Effects of Fidget Toys

Some researchers advocate that fidgeting, when done in a way that is not intrusive, may improve attention and cognitive performance. For instance, compared with a control condition in one study, sixth-grade students showed moderate improvement in academic writing scores and decreased distraction behaviors when using stress balls during writing instruction (Stalvey & Brasell, 2006). Aside from this example, no positive effects have been found for fidget toys on attention and learning or behaviors of general groups of students. There is some evidence to suggest that fidget use may affect students with ADHD differently, because of the sensory nature of the disorder, although the research is divided (Aspiranti & Hulac, 2022; Graziano et al., 2020). For instance, Aspiranti and Hulac (2022) found evidence of fidget spinner use increasing on-task behavior in a sample of second-grade students with ADHD, but Graziano et al. (2020) found that fidget spinners negatively affected attention in a study of kindergarten children with ADHD. Thus, the findings on using fidget toys as a behavioral support for children with ADHD is also tentative.

Several studies, however, suggest negative outcomes associated with fidget toy use. For example, in a multi-site study of third graders in the general education classroom, Hulac et al. (2020) found that students performed significantly worse on a grade-appropriate math worksheet when they were permitted to use a fidget spinner compared with when they were not, demonstrating a small effect (Hulac et al., 2020). The researchers suggested that fidget spinners were a source of distracting kinesthetic and visual stimuli for the students using them, although the authors did not directly evaluate the effect of using fidget spinners on attention.

Soares and Storm (2020) evaluated the effect of fidget spinners on college student memory and self-reported attention lapses in two studies. The first study evaluated the effect of fidget spinner use on comprehension of and attention to a video lecture. The authors found that individuals using a fidget spinner performed significantly worse on a memory test than students in a comparison condition, where a fidget spinner was being used by someone else, or students in a control group, where no fidget spinner was present. In the second study, participants watched two video lectures. During one lecture, participants used a fidget spinner and during the other they did not. In the fidget spinner condition, participant performance on memory tasks decreased and self-reported attentional lapse increased.

Limitations of the Literature on Fidget Toys

Relatively few studies explicitly evaluated the effect of fidget toys on student attention, learning, and behavior. Based on the available research, using fidget toys may lead to decreased on-task behavior and academic performance in some circumstances (Hulac et al., 2020; Soares & Storm, 2020) but may improve academic scores in other circumstances (Stalvey & Brasell, 2006). Claims that fidgets may benefit students’ attention lack methodological rigor, peer review, operational definitions, and replication. Critically, the mechanistic effect of fidget spinners on attention is unknown. Furthermore, unique fidget toy effects on behavior, attention, or academics have yet to be evaluated scientifically.

Theoretical Insight on Fidget Toys in the Classroom

Given the scant experimental evidence for fidget toys, two theories of fidgeting use provide insight into the effect of fidget toys on learning. Reviewing these theories can aid in informing practices for educators, school practitioners, and clinicians. Fidget toys are neither an empirically supported nor a one-size-fits-all intervention. The potential negative effects of fidgets on attention and learning should be weighed equally, if not greater than, their purported positive effects. This is particularly true within the general education environment or without targeted rationale and use.

Sensory Processing Theory

Support for fidget toy use is based on sensory processing theory, the idea that individuals need different amounts of sensory input at a neuronal level to reach their optimal level of arousal (Ayres, 1972; Dunn, 2007). Too little stimulation and the individual is under-aroused; they are bored or asleep. Too much stimulation and the same individual becomes hyper-aroused and unable to attend and behave appropriately. Based on this rationale, some individuals may benefit from the extra sensory stimulation created by a fidget toy to allow them to better engage in and complete tasks. Of particular interest when considering the use of fidget toys are those individuals who have a high sensory threshold, meaning they need more sensory input to maintain their baseline levels of arousal. Despite the appeal of Dunn’s (2007) model, it has little empirical support outside of Dunn’s own research. Furthermore, a causal relationship between neuronal reactions and behavior lacks empirical evidence, so behavior cannot be assumed to be the result of reactions in the brain at the cellular level (Hanft et al., 2000). Applying Dunn’s theory to fidget toy use is tenuous at best and misleading at worst.

Attention and Cognitive Load Theory

With fidget toys frequently being marketed and recommended based on their purported ability to improve attention in students of all ages, it is essential to explore the relationship between attention and fidget toy use. An alternative theory to Dunn’s sensory processing theory to examine the effects of fidgets is cognitive load theory (CLT; Choi et al., 2014). Cognitive load refers to the amount of content an individual’s working memory is able to process, given the demands of the task and the environment (Choi et al., 2014). Each person has a finite amount of cognitive processing capacity (Sweller, 1988). If mental task demands and external sensory input exceed a person’s working memory capacity, they may not be able to complete the task (Choi et al., 2014). Not only does using a fidget toy increase cognitive load for the user, but it also creates a distraction, and therefore increased cognitive load, for surrounding peers. For a student to successfully ignore distractions, like fidget toys in the classroom, they must use cognitive resources. Self-control, emotional control, behavioral control, as well as physical and cognitive effort place demands on working memory (Kahneman, 2011). Within the CLT model, fidget toys have negative environmental effects for both the individual user and classroom peers.

Cognitive load theory research has used scientifically sound measures and been conducted by many scholars using diverse paradigms and experimental techniques. Thus, the research on CLT produces clear, specific conclusions (Liu & Heynderickx, 2011). This specificity may be a limitation of CLT research as overall conclusions on the nature of attention are a synthesis of such specific findings, rather than tests of a complete model. Despite this limitation, theories of attention and cognitive load have greater empirical support compared with sensory processing theory. Therefore, attention and CLT should be given greater weight in considering the effect of fidget toys on attention and learning.

Conclusion

Based on the extant experimental and theoretical literature on fidget toys, sensory processing, and attention, educators and practitioners should proceed with caution when considering implementing fidget toys as a behavioral or attentional support in the general education classroom. While fidget toys may benefit some neurodivergent students, such as those with ADHD (Aspiranti & Hulac, 2022; Graziano et al., 2020), the literature suggests that the negative effects of fidget toys on attention and learning outweigh potential sensory benefits (Choi et al., 2014; Dunn, 2007; Hulac et al., 2020). Cognitive load theory is well established in the literature, and although limited to a handful of studies, experiments have shown both adverse and neutral effects of fidget toys on attention in the classroom. By contrast, there is no empirical support for the application of sensory processing theory to fidget toy use for the general education environment. The argument that some students need extra sensory stimulation and can obtain this stimulation through fidget toys remains speculative. While some may argue that using fidget toys, empirically unsupported as they are, is better than doing nothing, applying interventions that are not validated sometimes can do more harm than good. Aside from potential classroom management challenges, failed interventions can make the challenge in question seem more difficult to address than it actually is. Synthesizing the present knowledge of the effectiveness of fidget devices on student learning, providers may benefit from the following guiding questions and recommendations for using fidgets in schools.

There is no evidence that fidget toys are useful in improving attention or behavior, although they may have some utility in improving emotion regulation. For those students who enjoy fidget toys, they may also be valuable as a reinforcer or reward for target behavior.

There is no evidence that fidget toys are effective during full-group instruction. They may be appropriate for use during breaks; however, their utility should be compared with that of other activities, such as larger movement breaks, “brain breaks,” or social breaks.

Unless explicit skills and strategies for self-regulation are taught, the task of monitoring for appropriate use will likely fall on supervising adults which could add an undue burden to a classroom teacher. Without appropriate monitoring, it is likely fidget device use can regress from appropriate, to unhelpful, to detrimental.

To make sound decisions about the effectiveness of fidget toys in your classroom, it is best practice to collect data both with and without the fidget toys present to assess how fidget toys affect behaviors of interest, such as on-task behavior, talking out in class, in-seat behavior, or socializing behaviors. For more information on progress monitoring with fidget toys on academic skills, see Hulac et al. (2020).