Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Multi-sensory Classrooms (Disruptive or supportive? (Massonnie et al…

- - - - Dunn & Dunn (1989)
      - Visual, auditory, tactile
      - Classified in terms of best way of absorbing/recalling info
      - Prevalent
    - - Jenkins (2005)
      - Determine dominant learning style through forced-choice questionnaire
      - Matched instructional/pedagogical style to learner's preferred style
      - Enhances the individual's ability to encode and remember
    - - Changing teaching to "fit learners" may be negative
      - Priming self not to learn based on style of teaching
    - - Use 'styles' to inspire different ways of teaching > tool
      - Include multiple domains
      - Don't rely on this idea
    - - Learning style instruments = not shown to be valid or reliable
      - Lack of well designed investigations
      - reconsider instructional practives
      - Best approach = successful learners
      - Systematically designed and tailored
- - - - Sensory info presented in systematic, orderly way
      - Materials include all senses - auditory, visual, tactile, baric, stereognostic, chromatic, taste, smell
      - Learning materials designed to attract child;s attention + allow manipulation > tactile + visual
    - - Promote relaxations + aid with education/sensory development
      - No plausible theoretical mechanism and little supporting empirical evidence
      - Therapeutic environment for SEN
      - Maybe beneficial for promoting positive emotions
- - - - Catch the frog task - multiple animals, press button when frog appears
      - N=181, 5-10yrs
      - Multisensory Attention Learning Task
      - Caught > travel to habitat based on category distinguished by visual, auditory or audiovisual cues
      - Learn info without realising
      - Results
        
        Benefit increases through the early primary school years > improvement
        
        Improvement with age in learning from AV and A info
        
        Younger children poor with auditory only info - guessing not learning well
        
        Reliable benefit to learning using multi sensory stimuli between 6-10yrs
      - Broadbent et al (2018)
  - - - All group still perform well on category learning task
      - 6yrs < 8 + 10 yrs
      - Expect: 6 yr olds with auditory concurrent task
      - Auditory = distracting for young
- - - - Sound manipulation
      - Articulation-only
      - Combined gestures + sound patterns
    - - Training of alphabetic principle in 5yr olds
      - Visual, haptic, graphomotor, viso-haptic, visuo-graphomotor
      - Results
        
        Greatest benefit from highlighting or tracing the letter shape with visual info
        
        Distinctiveness of memory trace dependent on integration of different sensorimotor components - formed more deeply
    - - Reading acqusition - neural reorganisation of human brain facilitates integration of letters + speech
      - Neuroimaging + behavioural - impaired AV integration of letter/speechsounds
      - Core deficits in dyslexia
      - Artificial letter training
      - Multimodal approach - neural adaptations to AV integration related to reading outcomes
  - - - Reading requires matching orthography to phonemes until they become automatic correspondences
      - Difficulties with audio-visual integration in dyslexia
      - Neural markers? Early reading fluency (in high-risk sample) related to learning of grapheme-phoneme matching of artificial letters and modulation of temporoparietal brain regions
      - Multisensory computer based learning improves reading in dyslexics and non-dyslexics
    - - Orton-Gillingham Techniques
        
        Associating kinaestheitc manual moments with letters + sounds while using oral motor feedback
        
        Alphabetic phonics
        
        Spalding methods
        
        Wilson Reading System
        
        Barton Reading Programme
        
        Herman method (for small groups)
      - Evaluation
        
        Richey + Goeke (2006)
        
        5 = more effective than comparison.control for all outcome measures
        4 = more effective for at least 1 but not all outcomes
        2 = alternative instruction more effective
        1 = no differences once covariates included
        
        Critique
        
        No benefits found for vocab or reading fluency
        
        Which groups would benefit most from OG approach?
        
        Best outcomes only for nonword-reading, decoding and comprehension
        
        Highlights huge disparity between research and practice
        
        Few studies and lacking in methodological rigour
        
        Schlesinger + Gray (2017)
        
        Comparison of OG and structured lang instruction
        
        Both interventions provided explicit systematic phonics instruction - but multi sensory intervention also utilised simultaneous engagement of at least two sensory modalities
        
        Findings
        
        Both interventions found to have a treatment effect for typical deve + dyslexia
        
        Multi sensory approach not more advauagrous than structured phonics
- - - - Classroom noise did not promote creativity
      - Young children with poorer attention skills at risk of disruption (fewer ideas and less original)
      - Children with good attention protected from effects of noise
  - - - Sparse = more distraction from self/peers, decorated = more distraction from enviro
      - More time off task in decorated environment
      - Learning scores higher in sparse condition
      - Negative relationship between time off task and learning scores