So, my PhD topic is exploring how teachers support student self-regulation in the classroom. I very much started from a sensory lens, as that is my background, but I have quickly realised that OTs are really the only profession that considers self-regulation through the lens of sensory processing and arousal. Most models in education focus on executive functions and cognition, emotions and behaviour. To start my research, I wanted to understand what teachers were currently doing to support self-regulation. There is literature that shows sensory based interventions are used in schools by both educators and occupational therapists, but I wanted to start from a self-regulation lens and see whether sensory based interventions were mentioned as a support strategy.  

My review had three specific research questions. First, what interventions or approaches do mainstream primary school teachers currently use to develop students’ self-regulation skills? Second, how do teachers use these interventions or approaches? And third, do teachers incorporate sensory strategies when using self-regulation interventions?

Methods

To do this I did a scoping review following the Joanna Briggs Institute Framework for Scoping Reviews the PRISMA-ScR guidelines.

For those unfamiliar with scoping reviews, they’re different from systematic reviews. Rather than evaluating the quality or effectiveness of interventions, scoping reviews map out what’s known about a topic and identify gaps in the evidence. They’re particularly useful for emerging areas of research where we need to understand the landscape before diving into more focused questions.

The search terms were deliberately focused on “self-regulation” and “self-control” combined with terms related to teachers, interventions, and mainstream primary schools. I made a conscious decision not to include broader terms like “executive function” or “self-regulated learning” to maintain focus on self-regulation as a distinct construct.

Papers were included if they reported on primary research investigating teachers’ use of interventions or strategies to support self-regulation in students aged 4-11 years in mainstream schools. The interventions had to be implemented directly by classroom teachers during school hours. The covered education and health literature from January 2009 to March 2025.

Ultimately 16 studies met the inclusion criteria. I extracted data on strategies and interventions and coded these using an inductive approach. The strategies were organised into practice areas using thematic analysis.

The Results

The review included studies from eight countries, with most using qualitative methodologies like interviews and classroom observations. Participant numbers ranged from 1 to 2,222 teachers, with a median of 14-17 teachers per study.

Fourteen of the sixteen papers focused exclusively on teaching practices with students under the age of seven. Only two papers considered practices with older primary school children. This means the results predominantly reflect early years classroom practices rather than providing a comprehensive picture across all primary school stages.

Limited Use of Commercial Intervention Programmes

Despite there being over 50 published self-regulation intervention programmes, the review found very limited evidence that teachers are using these commercial programmes in their day-to-day practice. Only one paper reported on teachers independently choosing to use commercially available programmes—specifically Al’s Pals and Zones of Regulation.

Five other papers examined teacher experiences with specific programmes, but crucially, these were researcher-allocated rather than teacher-selected. These included Zones of Regulation, the SOWATT programme, Red Light Purple Light, PRSIST, and the Alert Programme.

This finding suggests a significant research-practice gap. The interventions we read about in research papers may not be making their way into actual classrooms unless they’re part of a research trial.  Essentially, we know that programmes are available, but we don’t know if teachers are actually choosing to use them in real-world classroom.

Teacher-Generated Strategies

So instead of reporting on programme usage, I identified 68 distinct strategies that teachers reported using to support students’ self-regulation. These strategies were organised into five practice areas: teacher facilitation, activities, resources, relationships, and physical environment.

Teacher facilitation was by far the most prominent practice area, accounting for half of all citations. This included three sub-areas: teaching practices, behaviour management, and classroom routines and structure. The most frequently used strategies were providing problem-solving opportunities, having clear behavioural expectations, and ensuring consistency of routines.

In the activities category, teachers most commonly used group games, music and songs, and dramatic play. Many of these are play-based strategies typical of early years settings and reflect the age ranges covered in the articles reviewed. I expect that these are used less frequently in later stages of primary school.

When it came to resources, there was limited consensus. More than half of the resources mentioned appeared in only one paper. Feelings charts, fidget toys, and behaviour charts were among the most frequently cited, but overall, teachers seemed to be using quite varied resources rather than standardised tools.

Sensory Strategies

Sensory was not identified as a discrete theme. Only three papers specifically referenced sensory-based approaches or programmes. Two of these involved occupational therapists in the research, which may explain why sensory strategies were included in this work. One paper reported on a ‘resource bin’ that a teacher created herself for students in her classroom, this included sensory tools like fidgets and liquid timers.

The review did identify some strategies that could be classified as sensory-based when compared against sensory intervention literature—things like gross motor activities, quiet spaces, managing sound and visual stimuli, and yoga or relaxation techniques. However, teachers weren’t explicitly identifying these as sensory strategies for supporting self-regulation.

This finding aligns with other research showing a disconnect between how occupational therapists and teachers understand and use sensory strategies. We may recommend sensory approaches for self-regulation, but teachers may be implementing them for different purposes, such as behaviour management, without recognising the self-regulation connection.

Practical Takeaways

So, what are the practical takeaways for how we work in schools. First, there is very little literature examining how teachers are supporting self-regulation in school and we cannot assume that teachers are familiar with or are using the evidence-based self-regulation programmes.

Secondly, there was an overlap between self-regulation strategies and general classroom management techniques. This makes it difficult to determine whether teachers are explicitly targeting self-regulation or whether it’s being supported as a secondary outcome of good teaching practice. When we’re working collaboratively with teachers, we need to recognise and build upon what they’re already doing rather than assuming they’re starting from scratch.

Third, there’s a disconnect around sensory strategies. Teachers may be using sensory approaches without recognising their connection to self-regulation, or they may be using them primarily for behaviour management. This highlights the importance of educating teachers about why we recommend sensory strategies and explicitly linking them to self-regulation outcomes.

Finally, we need more information about practices in later primary school years. If you’re working with children over age seven, be aware that there’s very limited research exploring what teachers are doing at these stages.

For us as occupational therapists working in schools, this review confirms something many of us have probably experienced: there’s often a gap between the evidence-based interventions we read about and what’s happening in classrooms. Understanding this gap is the first step towards bridging it through better collaboration and communication with our teaching colleagues.

This study of 15 preschool children with sensory over-responsivity and 15 typically developing controls found that children with SOR demonstrated significantly poorer self-regulation. Poorer self-regulation was strongly associated with SOR severity, elevated ADHD symptoms, lower social interaction, and increased emotional and sensory reactivity.

Researchers investigated how sensory processing relates to academic achievement in autistic children, children with ADHD, and neurotypical children aged 10-18. They used the Sensory Profile 2 parent form, reading and math tests, the ADOS, Connors 3 and Wechsler Abbreviated Scales of Intelligence and the SCAN 3 auditory processing test as measures. They found that both autistic and ADHD children showed similar levels of atypical sensory processing, and that there were varied patterns of associations between atypical auditory processing and academic achievement in both groups. In autistic children, both parent-reported and directly assessed auditory processing difficulties were associated with reading and maths achievement. However, in children with ADHD, only the directly assessed auditory processing—not parent report—was linked to academic outcomes. The authors emphasised that as neurodivergent children are increasingly integrated into general education classrooms, understanding how environmental factors—including sensory ones—impact learning opportunities becomes crucial