Literature Review

Introduction

Many children who exhibit behaviors that challenge their teachers may be kinesthetic

learners. These students have difficulty staying in their seats, facing the front of the classroom,

and often need to fidget with something during independent work times (Skoning, 2008, p. 4).

Special education teachers are continuously trying to find ways to assist learning for students

with learning and attention disabilities. There is an amount of research tied to multisensory

learning, student engagement, and decoding and sight word instruction, but there is not a lot of

research tying together student engagement with multisensory reading centers and the impact on

reading skills such as decoding and sight word recognition.

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of multisensory reading centers on

student engagement, sight word recognition, and decoding skills. Based on the literature

reviewed, there are many areas that are affected when implementing multisensory learning,

especially for those with learning disabilities. The literature in this review was divided into three

sections that include: (a) Multisensory Impact on Student Engagement, (b) Multisensory Impact

on Sight Word Recognition, and (c) Multisensory Impact on Decoding Skills. All of these

sections are focused on in the literature review. The literature led me to believe that further

research of the impact of multisensory centers would be valuable for future educators.

Multisensory Reading Centers Impact on Student Engagement

In order for students with learning and attention disabilities to be successful in reading

and to show progress, many studies have shown that they must be engaged in the learning. To

keep students engaged who have learning and attention disabilities for a long period of time can
be exceptionally difficult and many teachers struggle with this. Some of these articles used a

multisensory approach to engage students in different types of learning environments and not

only in the subject of reading. Establishing a classroom environment that encourages beneficial

movement throughout the school day can improve results for students with ADHD, help reduce

problematic classroom behavior, and better focus students attention on content instruction

(Mulrine, Prater, & Jenkins, 2008, p. 16).

Scout (2009) focused on how utilizing reading centers effected reading instruction for a

class of 17 students. They consisted of 12 boys and 5 girls of whom 10 were Hispanic, 6 were

African American, and one was Caucasian. During the study, Scout introduced literacy centers

that supported one or two students at most. The centers consisted of the library center, ABC

center, computer center, listening center, and journal-writing center. Once students seemed

uninterested in the center, Scout would switch the center out with a new center. Scout (2009)

explained that it was well worth the time to prepare and switch centers since it always increased

student engagement.

During the study, Scout went around and took notes on students at the reading centers

weather the students were engaged or were disengaged. The researcher had a specific mark that

was written down for student engagement. The findings of this study were that after the six

weeks that the centers were in place, the students reading scores had increased an average of four

reading levels. Scout also found a relationship between student engagement and reading scores.

An interesting finding that related to the topic of the effects of engagement on reading skills was

that the students who were engaged the least amount of time during the study had the lowest

reading level increase from the entire group of students. Scout also found that the behavior

system of One Strike and You are out that she had tried to implement did not work in her
classroom. This system was a practice when a student was misbehaving the researcher would

send the participant back to their seat to work, but the researcher soon realized that students

would misbehave to avoid work that was too difficult and were relieved to go back to their seat.

Scouts research supported the relationship between student progress and on task

behaviors similar to a study in 2013, Imeraj, Antrop, Sonuga-Barke, Deboutte, Deschepper, Bal,

and Roeyers studied the impact of instructional context on classroom on-task behavior. This

student compared students with ADHD and peers who did not have ADHD. In this study, thirty-

one pairs of children, one diagnosed with ADHD, 25 boys and six girls, and one same gender

matched peer without ADHD. These participants were between the ages of six and twelve. Like

Scouts research, the groups of students with and without ADHD were observed over two school

days in different classroom structures and subject areas to determine on-task behavior. Teacher

supervision was also assessed in this study. The results of this study supported that there is a

positive effect on students behavior with ADHD from using differential classroom instructional

contexts (Imeraj et al., 2013). The study concluded that small group work may have a stronger

impact on classroom on-task behavior than teacher supervision. Even after receiving more

teacher supervision, children with ADHD displayed lower levels of on-task behavior in settings

that were more independent and had higher levels of academic processing such as math, reading,

and writing (Imeraj et al., 2013).

Kercood and Banda (2012) were also interested in conducting research with students with

and without attention disorders. This study looked more specifically on the effects of added

physical activity on performance during a listening comprehension task for students with and

without attention problems. The participants of the study were four English-speaking students,

two boys and two girls who attended different general education elementary classrooms. Two of
the students had attention difficulties and two did not. The study added physical activity, gross

motor and fine motor (exercise ball and doodling) during a listening comprehension task to

determine if this reduces the amount of time spent on the task and the percent correct on the task

(Kercood & Banda, 2012). All four participants time on the task reduced and the percent correct

increased during both of the intervention activities (exercise ball and doodling) compared to

what the students scored at baseline. All but one student continued to decrease the amount of

time spent on the task after the intervention was removed. This study provides a simple

antecedent intervention that could be applied within an inclusive classroom, and would be

helpful for children with or without attention or learning problems (Kercood & Banda, 2012, p.

29). I found it interesting that the participants with attention difficulties only improved

performance when the intervention was in place.

The interventions provided an optimal level of stimulation for all participants that helped

them pay attention to the task and improve their performance; there was a decline in the

performance of participants especially those with attention problems when the baseline

condition (i.e. no intervention) was re-implemented. (Kercood & Banda, 2012, p. 29)

Kercood and Banda determined that once the intervention was taken away, the students scores

decreased.

Similar to Kercood and Banda (2012), Saez, Folsom, Otaiba, and Schatchneider (2012)

studied how attention in beginning reading relates to reading skills in later grades, and how the

role of students attending in class supports kindergarten word reading performance. Their study

participants consisted of 442 kindergarten children from ten different schools in one school

district. Over half of these students qualified for free and reduced lunch in the district and of the
participants, 54.7% were boys and 45.3% were girls. Saez, Folsom, Otaiba, and Schatchneider

(2012) examined the relationship between teacher ratings of attention-based behaviors and word

reading performance. They in addition investigated the relations between attention and three

teacher practices- task orienting, behavior management, and individualizing instruction

associated with achievements among these students. During the study, teachers received training

on how to individualize instruction within a small group based on student performance data, how

to manage reading centers, use reading strategies, and RTI. All of the instruction was given in the

general education setting by the trained teachers. The results of the study concluded The cross-

level interaction between individualizing instruction and attention-memory was positively

associated with word reading performance (Saez, Folsom, Otaiba, & Schatchneider, 2012, p.

427). The study found similar results as Scouts study in 2013 and Kercood and Bandas study in

2012, that student engagement has a larger effect on word reading than teacher practices, so that

a classroom management system in place can increase student attention. There are means by

which teachers can intentionally structure the classroom environment to support student attention

and thereby enhance goal-directed learning of academic skills in kindergarten (Saez, Folsom,

Otaiba, & Schatchneider, 2012, p. 429).

In a similar study that also examined social engagement, Katz (2013) investigated

engaging students in an inclusive classroom, academically and socially. The studies participants

consisted of 631 students from grades first to twelfth who attended ten different schools. This

study was different from the previous studies as the participants were broken up into an

intervention and control group. Both groups were assessed before and during the intervention for

academic and social engagement. During the study, different tasks and the way students were

grouped was investigated to determine effects on engagement by using the Three Block Model of
Universal Design for Learning. This model uses multiple intelligence strategies to assist students

in collaborating together to learn new information. Also, the groups completed surveys on

classroom climate and belongingness. Only a select number of students were observed on

student engagement. The results of this study showed Significantly increased student

engagement and behaviors, particularly active engagement, and promoted social engagement

through increased peer interactions and inclusivity (Katz, 2013, p. 153).

All of these studies showed some form of research completed about student engagement.

The studies also showed how engagement had an effect on student progress and social

engagement more than teacher supervision.

Multisensory Impact on Sight Word Recognition

Student engagement is important for students to be successful in the classroom and once

students are engaged, it affects student progress. These studies specifically look at students

making progress with word recognition or fluency and how different learning styles were met to

support this learning. Some studies had shown the effects of setting up a multisensory classroom

and how that met the needs of many at-risk learners. Ozerem and Akkoyunlu (2015) state,

Multimedia environments address more than one sense and teach by giving importance to

individual differences, which increase success and make permanent learning possible (p. 61).

Ozerem and Akkoyunlu (2015) focused on designing a learning environment according to

learning styles, motivation, and interests of 55 seventh grade students. Participants were assessed

on their learning styles through the Pat Wyman Personal Style Inventory. The majority of the

students had visual-auditory learning styles, the rest of the participants scored about even with

auditory-kinesthetic and visual-auditory-kinesthetic learning styles (Ozerem & Akkoyunlu,

2015). The results of this study determined that different learning environments based on

auditory, kinesthetic, and visual styles have a significant effect on student performance and

student grades (Ozerem & Akkoyunlu, 2015). Ozerem and Akkoyunlu (2015) concluded that

Different learning environments, designed and supported taking learning styles into

consideration, for the geometry subject can also be used on other subjects that students have

difficulty understanding (p. 75). My current study focused on reading skills, since there was not

a lot of research pertaining to multisensory learning experiences related to reading centers.

Similar to Ozerem and Akkoyunlus study, Sidhu and Manzura (2011) conducted a study

prior about the effects of a multisensory model to support students learning with dyslexia. This

study focused on the different learning styles and how differentiating instruction for reading

assists students with dyslexia. The participants in this study were younger and a smaller focus

group than Ozerem and Akkoyunlus study; this study involved children ages 6-10, but the focus

group consisted of 6 students. Similar to Ozerem and Akkoyunlus (2015) study, all students

were given a learning style survey. Researchers developed a technology model for students with

dyslexia that had five features- namely, interaction, activities, background color, directional text

reading, and detail instruction. On this device, the students were introduced to new syllables that

were colored in different text colors than previously learned sounds. Participants also visually

saw pictures such as animals, people, or things that start with the sound that they are being

taught. Last, students were able to practice writing the letters using the mouse to get the feelings

of the letters. After the study, Sidhu and Manzura (2011) concluded that 60% of the students

showed improvement in their performance, 30% showed no change, and 10% showed a decrease

in performance. This study did not show as significant of a change as Ozereme and Akkoyunlus

study in 2015.
 In 2011, Shoval and Shulruf created a study to understand who benefits from movement

while cooperatively learning. The participants of this study consisted of 158 learners from five

second and third grade classes. These participants were observed during group activities to

determine which behaviors show more success in the classroom. The behaviors that were

observed were: active, social, and passive. Shoval and Shulruf (2011) found the results of the

study suggest that students who are physically active while seeking knowledge and/or solutions

are more successful than their peers who are more socially active, even if initially they were

lower achievers. Passive students demonstrated the lowest academic achievements. The study

also suggests Movement activity in cooperative learning is effective in improving student

academic achievements (Shoval & Shulruf, 2011, p. 59).

Many studies such as Sidhu and Manzuras study in 2011 focus on multisensory

components for students with dyslexia and in 2013, McArthur, Castles, Kohnen, Larsen, Jones,

Anandakumar, and Banales studied the effects of sight word and phonics training on students

with dyslexia, but did not only focus on multisensory components, but also on the order of

teaching. In this study, there were 104 participants who had dyslexia and were split into three

training groups. Each group was given a different order of phonics and sight word training to

determine if the order made a difference in reading accuracy. McArthur, Castles, Kohnen,

Larsen, Jones, Anandakumar, and Banales (2013) found in the results of this study that sight

word training had a significant effect on word reading compared to phonics training. The results

also showed that both sight word and phonics training have an effect on reading for

understanding and reading fluency. The longer the study went on the larger the gains were found

for the students with dyslexia. After eight weeks, they showed moderate to large gains, but at 16

weeks, the students showed large to very large gains. This superior effect size supports the idea
that children with dyslexia need treatment for sight word reading and phonics reading, and not

just phonics reading alone (McArthur, Castles, Kohnen, Larsen, Jones, Anandakumar, &

Banales, 2013, p. 48).

In Campbell and Cookes 2008 study, Effects of Adding Multisensory Components to a

Supplementary Reading Program on the Decoding Sills of Treatment Resisters, Participants

were given ten minutes of daily instruction in the supplemental program in addition to instruction

in the evidence-based school-wide curriculum. The multisensory additions included finger

tapping, letter formation onto carpet squares, and the use of magnetic letters (Campbell &

Cooke, 2008, p. 267). This study consisted of six second grade students who did not make

progress after receiving intense intervention. These students also failed to meet grade level goals

in word fluency on a standardized assessment. During the study, these students all received

multisensory lessons that included writing letters on carpet squares (tactile), while seeing and

orally producing the letter sound. Also, the students worked on segmenting words and tapping to

each individual sound. Last, the students used magnetic letters to manipulate the word by

changing the beginning middle or end sound. These lessons were about ten to twelve minutes

long. This study indicated that word fluency increased when the reading intervention included

multisensory components. If the study had continued longer students may have met the grade

level standards as some of them were one word away or very close to meeting the standard

compared to baseline data.

In 2011, Wanzek, Vaughn, Roberts, and Fletcher conducted a study to determine if

reading intervention for students with learning disabilities was effective. The study consisted of

135 sixth to eighth grade students recognized with learning disabilities. The study was conducted

in seven middle schools. The method of this study was to introduce Response to Intervention
(RTI) to determine the effects on behavior and learning problems in the classroom. Participants

were assessed at the beginning of the school year, before the intervention had begun, at the end

of the school year, right after the intervention was completed, and again the next school year

about four months after the end of the intervention. The participants were assessed on the

following: word decoding, word reading, and comprehension. The results of the study concluded

that the students who received the intervention on sight word fluency showed significant

progress. Four months after the intervention was completed, the treatment group still

significantly outperformed the comparison group on sight word fluency (Wanzek, Vaughn,

Roberts, & Fletcher, 2011). Even though these students made significant progress, they still were

not meeting grade level benchmarks and made little progress to close the gap between their

reading skills and a typical peers reading skills. These students with learning disabilities were

reading far below grade level, and would continue to need interventions to continue to make

progress toward grade level skills (Wanzek, Vaughn, Roberts, & Fletcher, 2011).

This group of studies concluded that adding a multisensory component to student

learning had an effect on academic performance. Most of these studies also addressed how at

risk students even showed progress since adding multisensory components met many learning

styles.

Multisensory Impact on Decoding Skills

Multisensory components and student engagement have shown to have an impact on

student learning of sight words. This third topic within this review of literature summarizes how

multisensory components have an effect on decoding skills in reading. Riolo (2014) explains
Using a variety of sense to deliver your main points exposes multiple areas of the brain for

processing the material (p. 24).

In the 2013 study, Effect of Video Self-Modeling on the Decoding Skills of Children at

Risk for Reading Disabilities by Ayala and OConnor, they focused on the sense of vision to

support struggling learners. In this study, there were ten first grade participants who showed non

mastery scores for a phonics test at the beginning of the year. Once students had a baseline

reading score, they began the VSM (Video Self-Modeling) intervention. Students were filmed

decoding and reading words in a manner that mirrored their daily Tier 2 (intervention) sessions

Each video included five decodable words and five sight words (Ayala & OConnor, 2013, p.

146). Once students had been recorded, they would watch this video four times per week before

beginning any other intervention. The results of this study were that all students increased their

decoding word scores. Increases in decoding were paired with slow or decreasing progress in

sight word reading as they attempted to decode sight words (i.e., are, your, would) for which

decoding is ineffective (Ayala & OConnor, 2013, p. 149). All ten students showed an increased

score for their letter sound, diagraph, and vowel recognition tests, which placed them at or above

80%, this was an average score for first grade students.

Another article focused on decoding skills, but instead of visual support such as Ayala

and OConnors, this study focused on tactile support. Pullen and Lane (2014) researched

teacher-directed decoding practice with manipulative letters and word reading skill development

of struggling readers. This study had 102 first grade participants who scored low on an inventive

spelling assessment. During this study, there was a comparison group and a treatment group

unlike Ayala and OConnors small group focus. The treatment group received lessons that

required the use of magnetic letters and boards, but the comparison group received lessons
without the magnetic letters and boards. There were a minimum of three lessons taught each

week for seven to ten weeks. During these lessons, the treatment group spelled out words using

the magnetic letters and board and then created new words by changing the beginning, middle, or

ending sound. The comparison group decoded words while reading the story that the treatment

group also reads after the magnetic letter tile decoding practice. The results of this study

suggested that by adding magnetic letter tiles and boards, it improved students decoding skills

who struggle with reading. The treatment group of this study made significant progress on

decoding words compared to the control group. Pullen and Lane (2014) made it clear that the

treatment groups lesson was only nine minutes longer than the control groups lesson, yet it had

a much larger impact on students reading skills, including sight word recognition.

Very similar to Pullen and Lanes 2014 study, another study in 2014 was conducted by

Labat, Ecalle, Baldy, and Magnan and studied the effects of multisensory learning with the

alphabet and if it can benefit low skilled children. There were 72 participants from four

kindergarten classrooms, consisting of 39 girls and 33 boys. Before the study, the students were

split into four groups: the control group, who had no contact with letters, the visual group, who

watched the letters, the visus-haptic group, who watched and touched the letters, and the visuo-

graphomotor, who saw and highlighted the letters. During the study, teachers introduced new

letters to each group consisting of different lessons for the different groups, watching, watching

and touching, or watching and highlighting. After the study was complete, the results indicated

that the three groups compared to the control group made significant gains with letters and

sounds. Letter highlighting had the most growth, especially for those who were at risk or low

skilled learners. Highlighting the shape constitutes an effective classroom teaching method and
helps young children who are struggling with the alphabetic code (Labat, Ecalle, Baldy, &

Magnan, 2014, p. 112).

The last study that will be included in this literature review focused on visual and hands

on supports to assist students but also included movement. Dilorenzo, Rody, Bucholz, and Brady

(2011) researched the effects of how teaching letter-sound connections with picture mnemonics

on early decoding. The student explored Itchys Alphabet which is a curriculum that connects

letter sounds to multisensory cues. In this study, there were 61 students participants from three

different kindergarten classrooms. Out of the three classrooms, similar to Pullen and Lane

(2014), two were the treatments groups and one was a comparison group. There were a total of

32 boys and 29 girls in this study. During the study, the teachers would read a selected book, and

then introduce a picture mnemonic using large letter cards, a movement, and they would sing a

particular song from Itchys Alphabet Songs. After the lesson was complete, there were several

interactive independent activities for the participants to complete such as a matching game,

sound game, memory, and Go Fish. Once the study was completed, the treatment group and

comparison group was assessed to determine if there was an effect to using multisensory learning

to support decoding. The treatment group showed significant progress on letter sounds,

segmenting, and decoding words compared to the comparison group.

Results show that Itchys Alphabet, combined with hands-on manipulatives, was strongly

connected to childrens grasp of sub lexical skills. Test scores indicated gains for all

children including those who were at risk, children who received special education

services, and typically developing children. (Dilorenzo, Rody, Bucholz, & Brady, 2011,

p. 28)
Dilorenzo, Rody, Bucholz, and Brady (2011) discussed that there had not been a lot of research

on multisensory learning, and although they did not study a large group, they felt that the study

was promising for students who are taught using multi-senses, which is very different from the

traditional way of teaching decoding.

Conclusion

The research that was linked to using multisensory learning centers and the effect it has

on student engagement, sight word recognition, and decoding skills made it clear that

engagement and multisensory components make a large impact on learning, especially for

students with learning and attention disabilities. The research also revealed that sight word and

decoding instruction play a large role in reading skills, especially when the instruction was given

using multisensory accommodations. It has not yet been researched if multisensory sight word

centers effect student engagement and reading skills.

 References

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders

(5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.

Ayala, S. M., & O'Connor, R. (2013). The effects of video self-modeling on the decoding skills

of children at risk for reading disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 28(3),

142-154.

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.

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.

Imeraj, L., Antrop, I., Sonuga-Barke, E., Deboutte, D., Deschepper, E., Bal, S., & Roeyers, H.

(2013). The impact of instructional context on classroom on-task behavior: A matched

comparison of children with ADHD and non-ADHD classmates. Journal of School

Psychology, 51(4), 487-498. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2013.05.004

Katz, J. (2013). The three block model of universal design for learning (UDL): Engaging

students in inclusive education. Canadian Journal of Education, 36(1), 153-194.

Kercood, S., & Banda, D. R. (2012). The effects of added physical activity on performance

during a listening comprehension task for students with and without attention

problems. International Journal of Applied Educational Studies, 13(1), 19-32.

Labat, H., Ecalle, J., Baldy, R., & Magnan, A. (2014). How can low-skilled 5-year-old children

benefit from multisensory training on the acquisition of the alphabetic principle? Learning

& Individual Differences, 29, 106-113. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2013.09.016

McArthur, G., Castles, A., Kohnen, S., Larsen, L., Jones, K., Anandakumar, T., & Banales, E.

(2015). Sight word and phonics training in children with Dyslexia. Journal of Learning

Disabilities, 48(4), 391-407.

Mulrine, C. F., Prater, M. A., & Jenkins, A. (2008). The active classroom. Teaching Exceptional

Children, 40(5), 16-22.

zerem, A., & Akkoyunlu, B. (2015). Learning environments designed according to learning

styles and its effects on mathematics achievement. Eurasian Journal of Educational

Research (EJER), (61), 61-80. doi:10.14689/ejer.2015.61.4

Pullen, P. C., & Lane, H. B. (2014). Teacher-directed decoding practice with manipulative letters

and word reading skill development of struggling first grade students. Exceptionality, 22(1),

1-16.

Riolo, R. (2014). Let's talk senses! Legacy (National Association for Interpretation), 25(4), 24-

26.
Saez, L., Folsom, J. S., Al Otaiba, S., & Schatschneider, C. (2012). Relations among student

attention behaviors, teacher practices, and beginning word reading skill. Journal of

Learning Disabilities, 45(5), 418-432.

Scout, R. (2009). Putting literacy centers to work: A novice teacher utilizes literacy centers to

improve reading instruction. Networks: An Online Journal for Teacher Research, 11(1), 1-6.

Shoval, E., & Shulruf, B. (2011). Who benefits from cooperative learning with movement

activity? School Psychology International, 32(1), 58-72.

Sidhu, M. S., & Manzura, E. (2011). An effective conceptual multisensory multimedia model to

support Dyslexic children in learning. International Journal of Information &

Communication Technology Education, 7(3), 34-50. doi:10.4018/jicte.2011070104

Skoning, S. N. (2008). Movement and dance in the inclusive classroom. Teaching Exceptional

Children Plus, 4(6), 1-11.

Wanzek, J., Vaughn, S., Roberts, G., & Fletcher, J. M. (2011). Efficacy of a reading intervention

for middle school students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 78(1), 73-87.