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

1. 10/24/12
A Review of the Research on
Multisensory Instruction
WHERE ARE WE AND WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
Amy Vanden Boogart
George Washington University
IDA Annual Conference
October 25, 2012
Download slides at:
http://tinyurl.com/amyvbIDA
Session Overview
WHAT IS MULTISENSORY INSTRUCTION?
WHY IS IT IMPORTANT?
LITERATURE REVIEW: PURPOSE, STRATEGY, FINDINGS
TWO TYPES OF STUDIES
IMPLICATIONS
1

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. 10/24/12
Educational psychologists
(late 19th century):
• All senses involved in
learning
Dr. 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
memory
Gillingham and Stillman:
• Organized Orton’s
principles into a
remedial instructional
approach to phonics
instruction
• “Language triangle:”
visual, auditory, and
kinesthetic-tactile
linkages
Fernald:
• 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. 10/24/12
Educators have used
these techniques to help
struggling readers for
almost a century.
Many emerging
technologies include
multisensory
capabilities:
• Visual
• Auditory
• Tactile
Important to explore the
research behind how/
why the multimodal Why should we be talking about
nature of these
technologies 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. 10/24/12
So, is there research that backs it?
1998
“Reviews of the treatment literature on
developmental 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 techniques
since 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. 10/24/12
So, is there research that backs it?
2006
“It appears that the widespread use of
OG instruction has been fueled by
anecdotal evidence and personal experience”
(Ritchey & Goeke, 2006, p. 172).
Literature Review
PURPOSE
SEARCH CRITERIA
SEARCH STRATEGY
INCLUDED STUDIES
6

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. 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 needn't stick:
"At-risk" first graders rescued with appropriate intervention. Journal
of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 7(3), 327-332.
8

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. 10/24/12
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 children's 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. 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. 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. 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 studies
Note: one study falls in both categories
Multisensory Programs
18 STUDIES
EXAMINED CURRICULA CHARACTERIZED AS
MULTISENSORY
13

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 10/24/12
Multisensory Components
8 STUDIES
EXAMINED MULTISENSORY COMPONENTS OR ACTIVITIES
ADDED TO NON-MULTISENSORY INSTRUCTION
Features 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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
amyvb7@gmail.com
Slides can be downloaded at:
http://tinyurl.com/amyvbIDA
28