Identifying and supporting sensory and physical needs: what the evidence says

Original source: Department for Education — Identifying and supporting children and young people with sensory and/or physical needs: a rapid evidence review (ref RR1548, September 2025). Research evidence, not statutory guidance.

Sensory and physical needs cover a broad and often hidden range: vision impairment, hearing impairment, multi-sensory impairment, and physical disabilities affecting motor skills and coordination — from handwriting to gross movement. These pupils face real barriers to using the ordinary spaces of school: classrooms, playgrounds, libraries, shared areas. This DfE-commissioned rapid evidence review, led by UCL, examines how mainstream schools identify and support them. (Sensory processing difficulties linked to autism are covered in a separate review.)

Identification is specialist territory — with a defined teacher role

This review differs from its siblings in one important respect: sensory and physical needs are largely identified and diagnosed by qualified practitioners through specialised clinical and functional assessment. There are few screening tools a mainstream teacher can reliably use alone, and the review advises interpreting any findings with specialist help.

That does not mean teachers are passive. The recommended organising frame is the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), which looks at functioning, participation and context rather than diagnosis alone. A pupil’s difficulty accessing learning is shaped by the environment as much as by the impairment — and that is exactly where a classroom teacher’s observation is valuable. The most effective approach is a comprehensive assessment drawing on multiple methods, with the teacher feeding in how the pupil actually functions day to day.

Support: meaningful adaptation, not decoration

The review’s central caution is that adaptation must be meaningful to the task. It flags the well-known SAMR model — substitution, modification, augmentation, redefinition — for making STEM learning accessible, but warns that a superficial change to the form of an activity without thinking about the function is wasted effort.

Multisensory teaching strategies help make information accessible and support memory and encoding. Positive effects were found for maths, reading and phonological awareness interventions, and for assistive technology in supporting communication. But assistive technology and some Augmentative and Alternative Communication devices carry a real implementation burden: they need specialist support from technology and IT staff for setup, programming and troubleshooting, and this is a recurring gap in schools.

The role of the individual teacher and the individual pupil looms large. Well-planned, differentiated teaching using a range of multisensory techniques and explicit instruction is what makes intervention work. The review stresses that educators should work alongside specialists and healthcare professionals to identify need and design tailored support plans.

The honest gaps

The evidence base is thin. The review calls for larger-scale studies, including randomised controlled trials, because much of what schools do is supported by experience and expert consensus rather than strong trials. That is a signal to leaders to treat claims about specific products or techniques with care, and to lean on specialist partnerships rather than off-the-shelf answers.

For school leaders, the practical reading is this: strengthen the partnership between your SENCo, specialist services and IT support, audit how your physical environment actually works for pupils with sensory and physical needs, and insist that any adaptation is genuinely fit for the learning task — not a box-ticking gesture.

Multisensory teaching earns its keep because it supports memory and encoding, not because it is more engaging. The SAMR model — substitution, modification, augmentation, redefinition — is a practical way to judge whether a STEM adaptation is genuine: if the change does not make the learning more accessible, it is decoration. The review also emphasises that interventions are delivered by teachers and pupils together in real classrooms, which is why well-planned, differentiated teaching matters more than the assistive technology itself.

Practical takeaways for schools

Pair classroom observation with specialist assessment, organised around the ICF frame of functioning and participation.
Make every adaptation meaningful to the learning task, not a cosmetic change.
Plan and budget for the IT and specialist support that assistive technology and AAC devices actually require.
Lean on specialist partnership rather than off-the-shelf products, because the trial evidence remains thin.