Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Vanden Boogart IDA 2012 Session T18 HANDOUT


Published on

Handout from Amy Vanden Boogart's session T18 at IDA's 2012 Annual Conference

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Vanden Boogart IDA 2012 Session T18 HANDOUT

  1. 1. 10/24/12   A Review of the Research on Multisensory InstructionWHERE ARE WE AND WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? Amy Vanden Boogart George Washington University IDA Annual Conference October 25, 2012 Download slides at: Session Overview WHAT IS MULTISENSORY INSTRUCTION? WHY IS IT IMPORTANT? LITERATURE REVIEW: PURPOSE, STRATEGY, FINDINGS TWO TYPES OF STUDIES IMPLICATIONS 1  
  2. 2. 10/24/12   Need for Effective Instruction and Intervention—  Mastery of basic reading skills in the primary grades plays an important role in later reading achievement.—  75% of students who struggle to read in third grade will still struggle in high school (Fiester, 2010).—  Educators need effective primary instruction and effective intervention (both early and later).—  Multisensory instruction has been a common strategy for helping struggling readers for nearly a century.•  Uses multiple sensory pathways to create links between speech and print•  Effective for students with dyslexia and other language-based learning disabilities•  Uses visual, auditory, tactile- kinesthetic, and/or articulatory-motor components What is multisensory instruction? 2  
  3. 3. 10/24/12  Educational psychologists(late 19th century):•  All senses involved in learningDr. Samuel Orton (1920s):•  Multisensory phonics instruction essential for students with “word blindness”•  Emphasis on how letters look, sound, and feel•  Stressed repetition and sequential teaching of structure of language Multisensory Instruction:•  Should use all sensory pathways to A Brief History compensate for weak memoryGillingham and Stillman:•  Organized Orton’s principles into a remedial instructional approach to phonics instruction•  “Language triangle:” visual, auditory, and kinesthetic-tactile linkagesFernald:•  Worked with Helen Keller (1920s)•  Fernald Technique (VAKT) or tracing method; whole word approach using Multisensory Instruction: kinesthetic/tactile A Brief History modalities to supplement visual and auditory 3  
  4. 4. 10/24/12  Educators have usedthese techniques to helpstruggling readers foralmost a century.Many emergingtechnologies includemultisensorycapabilities:•  Visual•  Auditory•  TactileImportant to explore theresearch behind how/why the multimodal Why should we be talking aboutnature of thesetechnologies can help multisensory instruction?students learn to read So, is there research that backs it? 1977 Kline article in Bulletin of the Orton Society, “Orton- Gillingham methodology: Where have all the researchers gone?” 4  
  5. 5. 10/24/12   So, is there research that backs it? 1998 “Reviews of the treatment literature ondevelopmental dyslexia reveal a limited number of scientifically sound and clinically relevant reports of significant treatment effects” (Oakland, et al., 1998, p. 141). So, is there research that backs it? 1999, 2005 “Although clinicians and teachers have embraced multisensory teaching techniquessince the earliest teaching guides were written…,these techniques have seldom been well-defined, and clinical wisdom has been waiting for scientific research validation and explanation” (Moats & Farrell, 2005, p. 23). 5  
  6. 6. 10/24/12   So, is there research that backs it? 2006 “It appears that the widespread use of OG instruction has been fueled byanecdotal evidence and personal experience” (Ritchey & Goeke, 2006, p. 172). Literature Review PURPOSE SEARCH CRITERIA SEARCH STRATEGY INCLUDED STUDIES 6  
  7. 7. 10/24/12   Purpose—  To examine the existing body of literature on multisensory instructional techniques to answer the following two questions: ¡  In what ways can multisensory instructional techniques increase student achievement in reading? ¡  Which multisensory instructional techniques are most effective at increasing student achievement in reading? Search Criteria—  Empirical studies only ¡  No design limitations (experimental, quasi-experimental, descriptive, pre-test/post-test)—  Published in print-based, peer-reviewed journals ¡  No dissertations or theses—  Studied the use of multisensory techniques to improve reading/writing/spelling/handwriting in English—  Multisensory techniques had to include at least three sensory pathways (VAK, or VAT, or VAKT)—  No date restrictions—  Broader range of articles than Ritchey & Goeke’s (2006) “Orton-Gillingham and Orton-Gillingham-Based Reading Instruction: A Review of the Literature” 7  
  8. 8. 10/24/12   Search Strategy—  Databases: —  Search terms included: ¡  ERIC ¡  multisensory ¡  Education Abstracts ¡  VAKT ¡  JSTOR ¡  Orton-Gillingham ¡  Academic Search ¡  Fernald Complete ¡  multisensory structured ¡  Academic Search Premiere language ¡  PsychInfo ¡  reading ¡  PsychArticles ¡  decoding—  Reference lists of ¡  comprehension relevant articles/studies ¡  dyslexia Included Studies (25 total)—  Block, C. C., Parris, S. R., & Whiteley, C. S. (2008). CPMs: A kinesthetic comprehension strategy. The Reading Teacher, 61(6), 360-370.—  Campbell, M. L., Helf, S., & Cooke, N. L. (2008). Effects of adding multisensory components to a supplemental reading program on the decoding skills of treatment resisters. Education & Treatment of Children, 31(3), 267–295.—  Chandler, C. T., Munday, R., Tunnell, J. W., & Windham, R. (1993). Orton-Gillingham: A reading strategy revisited. Reading Improvement, 30, 59-64.—  Dev, P. C., Doyle, B. A., & Valente, B. (2002): Labels neednt stick: "At-risk" first graders rescued with appropriate intervention. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 7(3), 327-332. 8  
  9. 9. 10/24/12   Included Studies—  Dilorenzo, K. E., Rody, C. A., Bucholz, J. L., Brady, M. P. (2011). Teaching letter-sound connections with picture mnemonics: Itchy’s Alphabet and early decoding. Preventing School Failure, 55(1), 28-34.—  Foorman, B. R., Francis, D. J., Winikates, D., Mehta, P., Schatschneider, C., & Fletcher, J. M. (1997). Early interventions for children with learning disabilities. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1, 255-276.—  Guyer, B. P., Banks, S. R., & Guyer, K. E. (1993). Spelling improvement for college students who are dyslexic. Annals of Dyslexia, 43, 186–193. Included Studies—  Guyer, B. P., & Sabatino, D. (1989). The effectiveness of a multisensory Alphabetic Phonics approach with college students who are learning disabled. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 430–434—  Hook, P., Macaruso, P., & Jones, S. (2001). Efficacy of Fast ForWord training on facilitating acquisition of reading skills by children with reading difficulties: A longitudinal study. Annals of Dyslexia, 51(1), 75–96.—  Joshi, R. M., Dahlgren, M., & Boulware-Gooden, R. (2002). Teaching reading in an inner city school through a multisensory teaching approach. Annals of Dyslexia, 52(1), 229-242. 9  
  10. 10. 10/24/12   Included Studies—  Litcher, J. H., & Roberge, L. P. (1979). First grade intervention for reading achievement of high risk children. Bulletin of the Orton Society, 24, 238– 244.—  Lovitt, T. C., & DeMier, D. M. (1984). An evaluation of the Slingerland Method with LD youngsters. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17(5), 267-272.—  Marley, S. C., Levin, J. R., & Glenberg, A. M. (2010). What cognitive benefits does an activity-based reading strategy afford young Native American readers? Journal of Experimental Education, 78(3), 395-417.—  Marley, S. C., & Szabo, Z. (2010). Improving childrens listening comprehension with a manipulation strategy. Journal of Educational Research, 103(4), 227-238. Included Studies—  Oakland, T., Black, J. L., Stanford, G., Nussbaum, N. L., & Balise, R. R. (1998). An evaluation of the Dyslexia Training Program: A multisensory method for promoting reading in students with reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(2), 140-147.—  Ogden, S., Hindman, S., & Turner, S. D. (1989). Multisensory programs in the public schools: A brighter future for LD children. Annals of Dyslexia, 39(1), 247-267.—  Rule, A. C., Dockstader, C. J., & Stewart, R. A. (2006). Hands-on and kinesthetic activities for teaching phonological awareness. Early Childhood Education Journal, 34(3), 195-201.—  Sadoski, M., & Willson, V. L. (2006). Effects of a theoretically based large-scale reading intervention in a multicultural urban school district. American Educational Research Journal, 43(1), 137-154. 10  
  11. 11. 10/24/12   Included Studies—  Scheffel, D. L., Shaw, J. C., & Shaw, R. (2008). The efficacy of a supplemental multisensory reading program for first-grade students. Reading Improvement, 45(3), 139-152.—  Silberberg, N. E. (1973). Which remedial reading method works best? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 6(9), 18-27.—  Simpson, S. B., Swanson, J. M., & Kunkel, K. (1992). The impact of an intensive multisensory reading program on a population of learning- disabled delinquents. Annals of Dyslexia, 42(1), 54-66.—  Stoner, J. C. (1991). Teaching at-risk students to read using specialized techniques in the regular classroom. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 3(1), 19-30. Included Studies—  Thorpe, H. W., & Borden, K. S. (1985). The effect of multisensory instruction upon the on-task behaviors and word reading accuracy of learning disabled children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 18(5), 279-286.—  Thorpe, H. W., Lampe, S., Nash, R. T., & Chiang, B. (1981). The effects of the kinesthetic-tactile component of the VAKT procedure on secondary LD students reading performance. Psychology in the Schools, 18(3), 334-40.—  Vickery, K. S., Reynolds, V. A., & Cochran, S. W. (1987). Multisensory teaching approach for reading, spelling, and handwriting: Orton-Gillingham based curriculum, in a public school setting. Annals of Dyslexia, 37(1), 189-200. 11  
  12. 12. 10/24/12   Excluded Studies—  Not published in print journals ¡  Geiss, Rivers, Kennedy, & Lombardino (2012) - International Journal of Special Education (online journal)—  Did not specifically test the multisensory instruction ¡  Blau & Loveless (1982) – tested hand dominance—  Instructional strategy utilized only two sensory modalities (such as visual and auditory only) ¡  Neurological Impress method—  Dissertations and theses ¡  Donnell (2007), Dooley (1994), Westrich-Bond (1993) Literature Review Findings TWO TYPES OF STUDIES 12  
  13. 13. 10/24/12   Two Types of Studies Multisensory Programs Multisensory Components —  Full or supplemental curricula —  Specific multisensory for teaching language arts skills components or activities added like reading, decoding, spelling, handwriting to non-multisensory instruction —  May also be considered to enhance it “approaches” —  Often studied “as part of a larger —  Utilize multisensory techniques intervention package” (Campbell, as part of instruction et al., 2008, p. 269), but some —  Most either Orton-Gillingham studies have tried to isolate them (OG) or OG-based to evaluate their specific —  Grouped under “umbrella term of multisensory instruction” (Joshi, contributions to students’ et al., 2002, p. 232) reading growth —  18 of 25 studies —  8 of 25 studiesNote: one study falls in both categories Multisensory Programs 18 STUDIES EXAMINED CURRICULA CHARACTERIZED AS MULTISENSORY 13  
  14. 14. 10/24/12   Studies of Multisensory Programs—  Orton-Gillingham (OG) (7)—  Alphabetic Phonics* (3)—  Dyslexia Training Program* (1)—  Itchy’s Alphabet (1)—  Wilson Reading System* (1)—  Project Read* (1)—  Slingerland approach* (1)—  Multisensory Teaching Approach for Reading, Spelling, and Handwriting (MTARSH)* (1)—  Language Basics: Elementary* (1)—  Lindamood-Bell LiPS, Seeing Stars, and Visualizing & Verbalizing (1)*based on OG approach Features of Programs —  Most either used the Orton-Gillingham program itself or are based on OG principles. —  Most are mulitsensory structured language programs; based on direct, explicit, systematic, and sequential instruction —  Lindamood-Bell programs based on dual coding theory (involvement of various sensory modalities) —  MTARSH based on Fernald and OG techniques —  Most studies do not detail the specific multisensory activities/ features of the programs; none isolate the multisensory elements —  Most programs developed for or used with LD populations, specifically students with dyslexia or other reading disabilities, except for: ¡  MTARSH: adaptation of OG approach for general ed. classrooms ¡  Language Basics: Elementary (now called Structured Language Basics): fast- paced adaptation of Alphabetic Phonics for elementary classrooms 14  
  15. 15. 10/24/12   Populations in Program Studies—  Age ¡  Mostly elementary students (14) ¡  1 high school ¡  A few college-age (3)—  Disability status ¡  9 of 18: students with LD (most had SLD in reading) ¡  4 of 18: students “at risk” of reading difficulty or referred for remedial services ¡  4 of 18: students in general education ¡  1 of 18: both students with LD and general education Effectiveness of Specific Programs—  Orton-Gillingham (6 of 7 studies found significant gains for students receiving OG instruction) ¡  Litcher & Roberge (1979): OG group made significant gains in all areas of reading over basal group ¡  Guyer & Sabatino (1989): OG group made more gains than non- phonetic intervention and no intervention groups ¡  Simpson, et al. (1992): students who had more than 50 hours of intervention made most gains (only 30 hours = “negligible” improvement) ¡  Hook, et al. (2001): OG group and Fast ForWord group both made gains in phonemic awareness, but only OG group made gains in word attack ¡  Dev, et al. (2002): students made gains in reading and spelling after OG instruction; maintained gains for 2 years (but many limitations) ¡  Scheffel, et al. (2008): OG group’s phoneme segmentation fluency became more homogenous and closer to benchmark than comparison group; OG group’s nonsense word fluency significantly higher than comparison group; neither group made significant gains on oral reading fluency 15  
  16. 16. 10/24/12   Effectiveness of Specific Programs—  Alphabetic Phonics (3 of 3 found somewhat positive results) ¡  Ogden, et al. (1989): longitudinal study, students made progress with AP, but those who began the earliest (1st gr) made the biggest gains; self-contained students with SLD did not make gains until 3rd year, but reading comprehension then increased dramatically ¡  Chandler, et al. (1993): college students in AP improved their reading achievement, but control group improved more ¡  Foorman, et al. (1997): AP (synthetic phonics) led to significantly higher phonological processing and word reading skills than sight word reading and analytic phonics programs when covariates not controlled for, but when controlling for covariates (demographic variables), no significant differences among the three groups Effectiveness of Specific Programs—  Dyslexia Training Program (1 of 1 found positive results) ¡  Oakland, et al. (1998): treatment group (elem.) (both video-based and teacher-based) did significantly better than control group on reading comprehension, word reading, and decoding; no significant effect on spelling; but 10 students in control group had supplemental reading instruction—  Itchy’s Alphabet (1 of 1 found positive results) ¡  Dilorenzo, et al. (2011): treatment group (K) scored significantly higher than comparison group on initial sound fluency, phoneme segmentation fluency, and nonsense word fluency—  Wilson Reading System (1 of 1 found positive results) ¡  Guyer, et al. (1993): college students who had WRS instruction did significantly better in spelling than nonphonetic and control group 16  
  17. 17. 10/24/12   Effectiveness of Specific Programs—  Project Read (1 of 1 found positive results) ¡  Stoner (1991): 1st graders in treatment group performed significantly better than control group on word study, word reading, comprehension, and total reading; no significant improvement for 2nd or 3rd grade (but much smaller groups)—  Slingerland approach (1 of 1 found neutral results) ¡  Lovitt & DeMier (1984): no differences between treatment group and whole-word reading program group of 1st-3rd graders (both equally effective); but differences in how programs were administered and small sample size—  Multisensory Teaching Approach for Reading, Spelling, and Handwriting (MTARSH) (1 of 1 found positive results) ¡  Vickery, et al. (1987): longitudinal study of 1-6th graders, CAT scores increased for both remedial and non-remedial students; the more years of instruction received, the bigger the gains. Effectiveness of Specific Programs—  Language Basics: Elementary (1 of 1 found positive results) ¡  Joshi, et al. (2002): both LB group and comparison group (Houghton Mifflin program) of gen. ed. 1st graders had significant growth in comprehension, but LB group was significantly higher; only LB group had significant growth in phonological awareness and decoding—  Lindamood-Bell LiPS, Seeing Stars, and Visualizing & Verbalizing (1 of 1 found positive results) ¡  Sadoski & Wilson (2006): tested “scaled up” implementation from 1998-2003; students in schools that taught LMB programs outperformed comparable schools in reading comprehension (both Title I and non-Title I schools); differences increased over time for grades 3 and 4 (not for 5) 17  
  18. 18. 10/24/12   Reading Skills Assessed—  Most studies of programs looked at effects of multiple skills or general reading achievement; did not look for effects on one specific skill—  Skills assessed included general reading achievement, comprehension, oral reading fluency, decoding/nonsense word fluency, phoneme segmentation fluency, initial sound fluency, spelling Limitations/Critique—  8 of 18 studies published over 20 yrs. ago; only 5 since 2002—  Study designs: ¡  Most studies (13 of 18) were quasi-experimental (included pre-/post-tests with comparison/control group); no random assignment to groups ¡  Several studies reported pre-/post-test data only ¡  In time-series designs, nothing done to account for other possible explanations ¡  One compared four interventions with no control—  Multisensory elements of programs not isolated in any studies—  Inconsistent training of teachers—  Program being tested not the only reading instruction students received in some studies—  Half the studies had small numbers of participants ¡  11, 14, 30, 30, 31, 43 participants (smallest) ¡  3 studies had between 50 and 100 participants—  Group size not always reported ¡  Small group size for interventions could have contributed to results 18  
  19. 19. 10/24/12   Multisensory Components 8 STUDIES EXAMINED MULTISENSORY COMPONENTS OR ACTIVITIES ADDED TO NON-MULTISENSORY INSTRUCTIONFeatures of Multisensory Component Studies—  Studies that did not examine a full reading curricula/ program—  Attempted to isolate specific multisensory activities added to instruction to see if they increased reading achievement—  Much fewer studies in this category (8 vs. 18)—  Much more detailed descriptions of multisensory elements 19  
  20. 20. 10/24/12   Fernald Method—  Fernald method: ¡  Teacher writes word that child chooses and says the word. ¡  Teacher models tracing the word while saying it. ¡  Student traces word while saying it. ¡  Student repeats tracing/saying until able to do it from memory. ¡  Teacher covers word; child writes from memory. ¡  Student writes stories using the “mastered” words. ¡  Teacher types stories; student saves them.—  VAKT approach—  Whole word approach; differs from OG approach—  “De-emphasizes phonics” (Mather & Wendling, 2012)—  Tracing aspect of approach helps with visualization of words—  Only one reviewed study included this approach; did not find it to be more successful than auditory-phonic, visual, or OG approaches (Silberberg, et al., 1973), but study had several limitations and is almost 40 years old. Tracing/Finger-Writing—  Thorpe, et al. (1981): HS students underlined each grapheme in a word while pronouncing each grapheme, underlined and said the word, and then used index finger to write words 5 times on desk; then underlined the word while saying it. ¡  Effective for increasing word reading of high school students with LD, but not spelling—  Thorpe & Borden (1985): teacher modeled reading a word, students repeated, then traced word with index finger while saying the sounds; students then underlined word and said it again. After practicing this, students said word in unison and traced it with their pencils while saying the sounds, then underlined the word while saying it. ¡  Effective for increasing students’ time on task, which in turn increased word reading accuracy—  Campbell, et al. (2008)*: students traced letters on carpet squares while saying the sound of the letter ¡  Decoding fluency improved; could also potentially increase reading fluency *Campbell, et al. (2008) examined cumulative effects of 4 components; cannot isolate components. 20  
  21. 21. 10/24/12  Underlining Letters or Words while Saying Sounds—  Thorpe, et al. (1981): HS students underlined each grapheme in a word while pronouncing each grapheme, underlined and said the word, and then used index finger to write words 5 times on desk; then underlined the word while saying it. ¡  Effective for increasing word reading of high school students with LD, but not spelling—  Thorpe & Borden (1985): teacher modeled reading a word, students (7-9 yo) repeated, then traced word with index finger while saying the sounds; students then underlined word and said it again. After practicing this, students said word in unison and traced it with their pencils while saying the sounds, then underlined the word while saying it. ¡  Effective for increasing students’ time on task, which in turn increased word reading accuracy Kinesthetic Movements or Hand Motions—  Block, et al. (2008): elementary students’ used Comprehension Process Motions (CPMs), kinesthetic hand motions to learn and perform strategy for finding main idea ¡  CPMs improved students’ explicit and implicit comprehension (infer, draw conclusions, clarify, follow plot, find main ideas), vocabulary; improved both immediate and long-term comprehension growth—  Campbell, et al. (2008): 2nd grade students “tapped out” sounds in words with fingers ¡  Decoding fluency improved; could also potentially increase reading fluency—  Rule, et al. (2006): use of kinesthetic activities (arm movements to represent vowel sounds; pantomiming for meanings of verbs; stepping on “stones” representing different vowel sounds) and tactile/object activities (sorting objects by vowel sound or # of syllables) for teaching phonological awareness to 1st-3rd grade Title I students ¡  PA of students in kinesthetic and tactile groups initially lower than control group, but matched control group after intervention 21  
  22. 22. 10/24/12   Use of Manipulatives—  Campbell, et al. (2008): 2nd grade students used magnetic letters to spell words on a baking sheet ¡  Decoding fluency improved; could also potentially increase reading fluency—  Marley, et al. (2010): manipulatives (animal/people figurines) used to act out story events to aid the recall of 2nd and 3rd graders with limited English proficiency ¡  Manipulative strategy better than rereading for improving story recall (but observing manipulation offered same benefits)—  Marley & Szabo (2010): manipulatives (animal/people figurines) used to act out story events to aid K and 1st grade students’ recall ¡  Manipulatives significantly enhanced memory of story events for K and 1st graders’ (more than picture cues); younger children benefit more than older children Populations in Component Studies—  Age ¡  Almost all elementary students (7 of 8 studies) ¡  1 high school—  Mostly general education ¡  Only 2 of 8 studies looked specifically at special education students [Thorpe, et al. (1981), Thorpe & Borden (1985)] ¡  Campbell, et al. (2008): “treatment resisters” ¡  Marley, et al. (2010): ELLs ¡  Very different from studies of multisensory programs 22  
  23. 23. 10/24/12   Reading Skills Assessed—  Focus of component studies on only one or two reading skills, rather than multiple skills or general reading achievement ¡  Silberberg, et al. (1973): word recognition ¡  Thorpe, et al. (1981): sight word reading, spelling ¡  Thorpe & Borden (1985): sight word reading ¡  Rule, et al. (2006): phonological awareness ¡  Block, et al. (2008): comprehension ¡  Campbell, et al. (2008): decoding fluency, reading fluency ¡  Marley & Szabo (2010): listening comprehension/recall ¡  Marley, et al. (2010): listening comprehension/recall—  Different from studies of multisensory programs Overall Effectiveness—  Most studies found that the multisensory components added to instruction were more effective than control groups without multisensory instruction ¡  5 of 8 studies found statistically significant effects for at least one reading skill (but some studies had limitations) ¡  Campbell, et al. (2008): moderately significant effects on ORF (but limitations in assessment procedure) ¡  Marley, et al. (2010): ÷  Observing the manipulation strategy provided same benefit as actually doing it ÷  Participants did not maintain gains over time ¡  Thorpe, et al. (1981): no positive effect of MS components on spelling 23  
  24. 24. 10/24/12   Limitations/Critique—  Only half of the studies utilized designs that included pre-/post-tests with control groups—  Thorpe & Borden, Thorpe, et al., & Campbell, et al.: reported descriptive statistics only; no info about statistical significance—  Thorpe & Borden, Thorpe, et al., & Campbell, et al.: very small numbers of participants: 4, 6, and 6, respectively—  5 of 8 studies had individually-administered treatments—  3 of 8 studies published 1985 or earlier Implications MORE CURRENT RESEARCH NEEDED NEED RIGOROUS DESIGNS DURATION OF INTERVENTION MATTERS EARLY INTERVENTION NEED TO ISOLATE MULTISENSORY COMPONENTS LOOK AT EFFECTS ON OTHER SKILLS RESEARCH IN GENERAL EDUCATION SETTINGS 24  
  25. 25. 10/24/12   More Current Research Needed—  Research base on multisensory programs has not been updated; only 5 studies in last decade—  There has been more current research on multisensory components, but most have been of kinesthetic/manipulation strategies for comprehension; need more research on multisensory components for decoding—  Need current studies with rigorous designs Need Studies with Rigorous Designs—  Experimental designs with random assignment if possible ¡  Difficult to do this in human subjects research!—  Larger numbers of participants—  More explicit and detailed information about: ¡  Training of teachers ¡  Types of multisensory activities involved ¡  Equivalency of treatment groups (in quasi-experiments)—  Control of other reading instruction (outside of treatment) during experiment 25  
  26. 26. 10/24/12   Duration of Intervention Matters—  Several studies reported largest gains were for students who received instruction in multisensory programs for longest amount of time—  Many of the studies were conducted over a very short period of time; longer studies or longitudinal studies may demonstrate more positive results Early Intervention Is Important, but…—  Several studies found stronger gains for younger students than older students ¡  Indicates importance of early intervention—  20 of 25 studies were with elementary students ¡  5 that looked at high school/college students did report some positive effects, but all from 1980s-early 1990s ¡  Need to revisit use of multisensory instruction as an intervention with older students 26  
  27. 27. 10/24/12   Need to Isolate Multisensory Components—  Systematic and explicit nature of multisensory programs may be responsible for gains; hard to tell how much of the growth is specifically from the multisensory aspects of the program—  Testing isolated multisensory components would shed light on which are most effective ¡  Has been done more for comprehension than decoding (Marley, et al., 2010; Marley & Szabo, 2010) ¡  Campbell, et al. (2008) tried to test isolated components but they used four different multisensory strategies, so still difficult to tell which are most effective; did not compare to a control Look at Effects on Other Skills—  National Reading Panel: ¡  Phonemic Awareness ¡  Phonics ¡  Fluency ¡  Vocabulary ¡  Comprehension—  Most studies of multisensory instruction have focused on comprehension, decoding, and (to a much lesser extent) phonological awareness—  Would be interesting to research multisensory approaches to vocabulary and fluency instruction—  Should also look at effects on spelling; only examined in a couple of studies 27  
  28. 28. 10/24/12   Research on Programs in Gen. Ed. Settings—  Most studies of multisensory programs looked at effects on students with LD—  Many studies have been in clinical settings—  The few in general education settings offer promising results—  More research on effectiveness of multisensory instruction as a preventative strategy Thank You! AMY VANDEN BOOGART Slides can be downloaded at: 28