This article is a descriptive case series by Kincs and colleagues.

What They Did

This study explored how preschool staff perceived classroom-based sensory corners designed using occupational therapy principles. The researchers were particularly interested in whether these spaces were feasible and acceptable as a universal, Tier 1 support for all children.

The sensory corner was defined as a designated classroom space offering purposefully selected, child-directed regulation activities intended to support all students within a universal framework. The design incorporated sensory processing principles; however, the researcher did not formally identify children as having sensory processing needs, and the study examined staff perceptions of a classroom-wide support.

Each sensory corner included a “Cosy Cube” for semi-privacy, materials organised by sensory input type—fidgets, visual bubble timers, wobble cushions, yoga pose visuals, and mindfulness tools like breathing pinwheels.

The study had two main aims: first, to explore staff perceptions of feasibility, acceptability, demand, implementation, and practicality; and second, to describe any staff-observed changes in classroom behaviours related to emotional regulation and participation following implementation.

Methods

This was a mixed-methods descriptive case series conducted in two preschool classrooms at a single urban early childhood centre in the United States. Four female staff members participated, comprising of two lead teachers and two assistant teachers. Each classroom had up to 20 children aged 3-5 years, with fewer than one-quarter of children in the classes being identified as having additional education needs.

The study ran across three phases over eleven weeks. During the pre-implementation phase, the researcher conducted classroom observations and staff completed a baseline Classroom Behaviour Scale, rating the frequency of observable regulation-related behaviours over the previous five school days. The implementation phase lasted five weeks and included collaborative design of the sensory corners, student orientation through small-group sessions, and ongoing push-in coaching where the researcher modelled strategies during natural classroom routines. So, although it was described as a universal support, the occupational therapist was quite involved in the set up and monitoring, and I think it could be argued the provision might meet the threshold for Tier 2 support. Post-implementation, staff completed the Classroom Behaviour Scale again and a Classroom Perception/Acceptability Survey and a final in-service was conducted.

The Results

Three of the four staff members completed both pre- and post-intervention behavioural measures, whilst all four completed the perception survey. So we need to keep in mind it is a very small trial.

Classroom Behaviour Scale Findings

The results showed variability across participants. One staff member reported a clear decrease in the frequency of regulation-related behaviours, one showed a slight decrease, and one reported no change.

Staff Perceptions Survey

Staff perceptions were similarly mixed. Only one participant scored above the threshold indicating strongly positive perceptions, with the group mean falling below this cutoff. However, this doesn’t mean the intervention was unsuccessful—rather, it highlights real-world implementation challenges.

Qualitative Themes

The thematic analysis revealed five key themes. Regarding accessibility, some staff reported that children had consistent access and understood how to use the space, whilst others identified barriers related to physical space limitations, particularly placement near high-traffic areas like the classroom library.

Staff highlighted beneficial aspects including visual aids—one noted, “The visuals are great. The students can understand more from the visuals because they can’t read yet”—as well as breathing tools and yoga poses. However, barriers to use included inappropriate student behaviours like sleeping in the cube or turn taking disputes, limited staffing support, and confusion when the sensory corner overlapped with other classroom areas.

Perceptions of the push-in coaching model were mixed. Some appreciated real-time modelling embedded in classroom routines, whilst others found it difficult to attend to coaching whilst managing classroom demands.

There were no measures linked to children’s performance, so the study only collected educator’s perception. This is quite normal for small studies as it is much trickier to gain consent from parents for children’s involvement but is definitely something that could provide us with greater insights to the value of sensory corners and other sensory approaches in the classroom.

Practical Takeaways

So, I suppose our practical takeaways are that the success of these interventions really does vary on the context, physical space, structure, staffing and classroom routines. I know I see this frequently in practice. Interestingly in my scoping review, calm corners were frequently reported to exist in early years classrooms, so I think it would have been interesting to see how OTs could contribute advice to existing provision, rather than necessarily creating a completely new space. The varied opinions from staff regarding the different approaches to support, in the-moment coaching vs structured training outside instructional time also reminds us that different staff have different preferences for how support is delivered. I think this algin nicely with some of the ethical issues raised in episode 17, whereby therapists raised concerns regarding prescriptive, pre-determined approaches for universal provision. All interesting things we need to consider.

This study by Adams examined the effectiveness of a resource library and teacher training programme designed to facilitate school-based movement integration. The research evaluated an occupation-based health promotion initiative that provided teachers with resources and training to incorporate movement activities into classroom routines. Findings demonstrated that this capacity-building approach successfully supported teachers in integrating movement throughout the school day, promoting children’s physical activity and engagement in learning.

This study by Lunden and Morin explored the implementation of trauma-informed care education for after-school programme staff working with at-risk youth. The research examined how training staff in trauma-informed principles enhanced protective factors and improved programme delivery. The findings indicated that the training helped to improve staff knowledge and confidence but did not evaluate if this led to changes in practice or student outcomes. The study provides evidence for the OTs being involved in trauma-informed approaches within teams.

This study by Feldhacker and colleagues examined the feasibility of implementing occupational therapy-based developmental screening within a Head Start programme. Head Start is an early year’s programme in the USA typically for children aged 3-5. The research demonstrated that integrating occupational therapy screening into early childhood education settings was feasible and valuable for early identification of developmental concerns. This collaborative approach enabled earlier identification for children at risk of developmental delays whilst building capacity among early childhood educators. It is a good example of universal provision within education.

This paper by Aydoner Bektas presents the School Readiness Ecological Approach (SERA), a framework that positions school readiness as ecological fit between the child and the educational environment. Rather than focusing solely on child-level skills such as cognition and language, SERA emphasises the interaction between child capacities and environmental demands. This ecological perspective aligns with occupational therapy’s person-environment-occupation framework and provides therapists and educators with a more holistic approach to supporting children’s engagement in school.