Fidget spinners and other sensory toys are ubiquitous in Australian classrooms, but do they really support learning or do they undermine it?

NOTE: This post is written from the perspective of mainstream classroom teaching. There are undeniably situations where sensory tools are used in support of regulation or harm reduction, and in clinical or at-home contexts, these might be both effective and appropriate. Our focus here is on how sensory toys impact learning and attention in whole-class environments, where teachers must consider the needs of 20–30 students at once.

For most teachers, the distraction is obvious, but as Professor Lorraine Hammond always told us — Seek evidence over anecdote.

In cognitive science terms, there are several issues with how sensory toys affect learning. Sensory memory is the initial gateway for processing incoming information, and it’s dominated by visual and auditory input — together accounting for over 90% of what we take in. Toys that move, make noise, or are brightly coloured draw on those same sensory channels. They compete directly with instructional input — whether that’s a teacher explaining, modelling, or students working independently. This competition for attention matters, because only what we attend to enters working memory, and only then can it be encoded into long-term memory (learned).

What the research says

Fidget spinners burst into classrooms with bold claims: calm anxiety, boost focus, improve engagement. But surprisingly, the research is murky, especially in the context of classroom teaching. Most studies in favour of sensory interventions like fidget spinners were based on weaker measures, like students’ self-reported feedback of the toy’s efficacy. In other words, they asked students if it helped rather than measured if it did. Many of the studies also focus on clinical conditions like 1-on-1 and small group settings, not classrooms.

Before they enter our classrooms, we really need to know if the toys actually support learning or undermine it. The following studies seek to answer that:

Tools or Toys? The Effect of Fidget Spinners and Bouncy Bands on the Academic Performance in Children With Varying ADHD‑Symptomatology (Driesen et al., 2023). This study tested over 200 primary students using both fidget spinners and bouncy bands. Fidget spinners had a consistently negative impact on academic performance across tasks. Bouncy bands were slightly better but still showed a net negative effect. The researchers concluded that neither tool should be adopted for general classroom use. Importantly, the study highlighted that the novelty and tactile engagement of these tools may actually compete with cognitive resources required for learning.

A Multisite Study of the Effect of Fidget Spinners on Academic Performance (Trout et al., 2020):
Conducted across several schools, this study assessed the effects of fidget spinners on short-form maths assessments. The results showed a clear decrease in performance among students using the spinners compared to those who weren’t. The authors warned that although the tools may be perceived as helpful, they likely act as competing stimuli, drawing attention away from instructional goals.

To Fidget or Not to Fidget (Graziano et al., 2020): This study focused specifically on students diagnosed with ADHD. It found that while there was a small behavioural benefit (such as reduced outbursts or increased initial compliance), the use of fidget spinners nearly doubled attention disruptions — both for the student using the toy and those nearby. The conclusion was clear: the cost to sustained attention outweighed the benefits, and teachers should be cautious in their use.

A Systematic Review of Sensory-Based Treatments for Children with Disabilities (Reichow et al., 2015): This comprehensive review examined a range of sensory interventions, including weighted vests, textured seats, and hand-held fidget toys. The reviewers found no reliable evidence that these tools improved academic outcomes. In fact, in some cases, the interventions had negative effects — either by disrupting routine, drawing attention away from tasks, or by reinforcing off-task behaviour. The authors cautioned against adopting these tools without a clear evidence base and individualised rationale.

What we recommend instead

We believe first and foremost in the power of effective cues and routines that are steeped in research and real-world success. Combined with the safety that teachers embed through their structured and supportive learning environments, this is the foundation of an effective classroom.

Embed consistent participation routines
Tools like the Engagement Norms and the TAPPLE teaching protocol, developed by Hollingsworth and Ybarra, are great examples of tried and tested instructional routines. The key is that the routines need to become automatic for students, so time and effort must be taken to train and embed them. We have used these successfully for years with all kinds of learners.

Reinforce hands-on learning, not hands-on distractions
Encourage students to use their hands for learning by guiding them to engage in gesturing, movement, physical demonstrations, whiteboard responses, pointing, tracking and tracing, and handwritten notetaking. There is significant research supporting each of these including exciting new research from Cognitive Science around handwriting and the brain.

Maximise thinking and responding to support both engagement and encoding
Anita Archer says it best: “I say something, they say something. I do something, they do something. I write something, they write something… It can never be: I say something… I say something… I say something…” The more students think and respond, the more they learn. This constant back-and-forth isn’t just about behaviour — it’s about cognition. The more students engage with the content, the deeper it goes. In a similar vein, Dylan Wiliam urges teachers to avoid hand-raising and instead use non-volunteer questioning and mini-whiteboards to keep every student actively involved in the thinking process, not just the eager few.

Final thoughts

Whole-class instruction is innately complex. Teachers spend their waking lives trying to meet the needs of a diverse group of learners, and to do it every minute of every day is an absolute roller coaster. Teachers strive to maximise the learning for their students, and this often includes minimising the extraneous cognitive load that comes with disruptions. Sensory toys, especially those that use the hands and involve movement and noise, can be a major source of this disruption for both the student using it and the rest of the class.

When it comes to sensory tools in a mainstream classroom, we recommend avoiding them wherever possible. If a sensory toy intervention is insisted upon, try to seek one that creates the least distraction.

— Shaping Minds

Further Reading

Driesen, M., Theunissen, S. C. P. M., T’Sjoen, T., de Vries, M., & van der Oord, S. (2023). Tools or toys? The effect of fidget spinners and bouncy bands on the academic performance in children with varying ADHD‑symptomatology. Child Psychiatry & Human Development.

Graziano, P., Garcia, P., Finn, A., & Salmon, H. (2020). To Fidget or Not to Fidget: A Systematic Classroom Evaluation of Fidget Spinners among Young Children with ADHD. Journal of Attention Disorders.

Reichow, B., Barton, E., Boyd, B., & Odom, S. (2015). A Systematic Review of Sensory-Based Treatments for Children with Disabilities. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders.

Trout, A., Nordness, P., Pierce, C., & Epstein, M. (2020). A Multisite Study of the Effect of Fidget Spinners on Academic Performance. SAGE Open.

Twyman, J., & Tincani, M. (2007). Using a Self‑Monitoring Strategy to Increase On‑Task Behavior and Task Completion in a General Education Classroom. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions.