ed cifs 503 - thesis

8/13/2019 ED CIFS 503 - Thesis

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ed-cifs-503-thesis 1/29

1

Running head: MULTISENSORY REMEDIAL READING INSTRUCTION STUDY

Multisensory Reading Intervention Study

Teresa Froehlke

Boise State University

ED-CIFS 503

Dr. Ted Singletary

April 28, 2009



2

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the Institute for Multi-Sensory

Education’s supplementary Orton-Gillingham based reading program across two elementary

schools in a single school district. Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS)

assessments will be used to measure the reading skills of 25 treatment and 50 comparison group

third and fourth-grade students. A control group of students will receive traditional remedial

reading instruction for 45 minutes per day in a core reading program and the treatment group of

students will receive additional instruction using the supplementary reading program for 30

additional minutes per day. Classroom observations by reading professionals will be used to

determine program implementation. Teacher surveys will be conducted to determine their

satisfaction with the multisensory program implementation. The results and implications of this

study will be noted at the conclusion of the study.



3

Table of Contents

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION........................................ 4

Purpose of Study ....................................................................................................................................... 5

Defining Dyslexia ................................................................................................................................. 5

Personal Experience Treating Dyslexia ................................................................................................ 7

Defining of Terms ................................................................................................................................. 9

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW .................................. 11

What are the signs of dyslexia?............................................................................................................... 11

How is dyslexia diagnosed? .................................................................................................................... 12

Is Dyslexia Different Than Other Reading Disabilities? ......................... 13

Questions of Existence ............................................................................................................................ 15

Reading Interventions ............................................................................................................................. 17

Interactive constructivist model of learning ........................................................................................ 17

Orton-Gillingham Multisensory Reading Program ............................................................................. 19

Chapter III: DESIGN OF STUDY ....................................... 22

Purpose of this study ............................................................................................................................... 22

Research Design...................................................................................................................................... 22

Subjects and Setting ................................................................................................................................ 23

Method .................................................................................................................................................... 23

Data Gathering ........................................................................................................................................ 24

Limitations of the study .......................................................................................................................... 25

References Error! Bookmark not defined.



4

Multisensory Reading Intervention

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

During my summer practicum in 2008, I was assigned to a remedial reading classroom. The

students in the classroom ranged from first to third grade and they all shared low scores (ones

and twos) on the Idaho Reading Index. One particular student struggled to make sense of the

words in front of him and could not follow words on a computer screen. My fellow teachers

thought that he had dyslexia. The interventions that we used with other students where

frustrating to this student and I struggled with finding methods that would help him to read.

Later in the fall my ten year old daughter was diagnosed with dyslexia. Her reading disability

seemed so different from the student in my summer reading program. The commonality between

my daughter and my summer student was that conventional reading strategies did not help in

teaching them to read. These experiences led me to try to understand more about dyslexia and

methods used for intervention.

My intent in this study was to find out more about dyslexia and the remedial methods used for

this reading disability. I relied on interviews, books and journal articles to research dyslexia and

the remedial methods used for students with reading difficulties.

The specific purpose of this study is to determine if a multisensory approach used for

remedial reading programs does increase reading proficiency. The areas of reading proficiency

this study will examine are: assessments of phonological awareness, alphabetic principle and

phonics, accuracy and fluency with connected text, measure of comprehension, vocabulary and

oral language.



5

Purpose of Study

The questions addressed in this study are:

1) How is dyslexia Defined?

2) Is dyslexia different than other reading disabilities?

3) Does a multi sensory remedial approach increase reading proficiency?

I have found through my study of dyslexia that it difficult to define and diagnosis. My original

study was to determine if students that were identified as having dyslexia and students with

another reading disability would respond differently to a multisensory remedial reading program.

After interviewing two special education professionals, with many years of tutoring students

with dyslexia and reading disabilities, they felt the distinction would be too difficult to isolate.

Why is dyslexia hard to isolate? The following definitions demonstrate the diverse nature of

this disability.

Defining Dyslexia

What is Dyslexia?

Dyslexia is one of the most prevalent learning disabilities that is diagnosed. This condition

affects 2 to 20 percent of the general population. It occurs in at least fifty percent of the learning

disability population (Spafford & Grosser, 2005).

Research Describing Dyslexia

Dyslexia comes from the Greek roots dys, difficulty, and lexia pertaining to words. A person

with dyslexia has difficulty in translating symbols (Lally, 1976). Spafford and Grosser (2005)

stated from their research that dyslexia appears to have a neurological basis, and is not related to

other cognitive abilities. Furthermore, they stated that there are specific difficulties with fluent

reading and the phonological components of language. Dyslexia does not exist alone it can



6

include other academic problems (e.g., reading comprehension), difficulties in socialization and

other disabilities or disorders such as attention deficit disorder.

Grigorenko (2001) in her article on development dyslexia also defines dyslexia as a

developmental condition, characterized primarily by severe reading difficulty despite average

intelligence and acceptable education.

Barillieux, Vandervliet, Manto, Parizel, Deyn, and Marien (2007) in their article define

developmental dyslexia in similar terms as Grigorenko in that dyslexia is an isolated

developmental disorder in children who have normal intelligence and conventional classroom

experience, but fail to sufficiently learn reading skills.

Bernstein (2009) in his study further defines dyslexia similarly as the previous researchers but

includes the phonological core deficit hypothesis, which states that children with dyslexia

experience severe and unexpected difficulty in learning to read and spell due to the deficiency in

phonological processing..

The authors, Ramus, Rosen, Dakin, Day, Castellote, White, and Frith (2003) in their article

define dyslexia as a discrepancy between reading ability and intelligence in children receiving

adequate reading instruction. They stated that dyslexia is a neurological disorder with a genetic

origin.

The International Dyslexia Institute (2009) also defines dyslexia as being neurological in

origin. They list the following difficulties: accurate and/or fluent word recognition and by poor

spelling and decoding abilities. Bernstien’s definition also includes that the difficulties typically

result from a deficit in the phonological component of language. This deficit is unexpected in

relation to other cognitive abilities and effective classroom instruction. Furthermore, he mentions



7

secondary consequences that include problems in reading comprehension and avoidance of

reading that can delay of vocabulary development and background knowledge.

The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (2009) defines dyslexia as: A

learning disability that impairs a person’s ability to read. People with dyslexia read at levels

significantly lower than expected based on intelligence. The disorder varies from person to

person, but common characteristics among people with dyslexia are difficulty with spelling,

phonological processing, and/or quick visual-verbal responding. In adults, dyslexia can occur

after a brain injury or with dementia. They note that dyslexia can be inherited in some families,

and that recent studies have identified a number of genes that may predispose an individual to

developing dyslexia.

Personal Experience Treating Dyslexia

Emily Boles, director of Frameworks Tutoring Services diagnoses students with dyslexia

based on a definition from author Sally Shaywitz (2003), in her book Overcoming Dyslexia:

That it’s a reading difficulty in a person who otherwise has good intelligence, is motivated,

and has had adequate schooling/education. Dyslexia is primarily a deficit in phonological

awareness, and the reading difficulty is at the single-word decoding level — initially problems

with decoding accurately and later fluently (E. Boles, personal correspondence, March 28, 2009).

Ms. Boles states that a struggling reader could be struggling for many reasons, such as a

poor reading instruction, excessive absences from school or even a history of ear infections that

interfered with early speech/language development. Ms. Boles uses the following criteria to

determine dyslexia:

1) Difficulty in reading/decoding individual words, slow reading, but often good reading

comprehension.



8

2) Inaccurate and labored reading

3) Trouble with small words (and, that, but)

4) Child’s history and family history of reading problems (E. Boles, personal

correspondence, March 28, 2009).



9

Defining of Terms

For the purpose of this study, the following terms need clarification and defining.

Multisensory Program: Method using all of the learning pathways: visual, auditory, and

kinesthetic (Scheffel, J.C. Shaw, & R. Shaw, 2008).

Orton-Gillingham multisensory reading program: Program designed to be incorporated into

existing reading curricula. This program is a multisensory, structured, phonetic instructional tool.

The program was developed by a neurologist Dr. Samuel T. Orton and educator Anna

Gillingham(Scheffel, J.C.Shaw, & R. Shaw, 2008).

Read Right: The Read Right system of instruction was developed by integrating knowledge of

brain research, an interactive constructivist model of learning, and psycholinguistic reading

theory. It was developed by Dr. Dee Tadlock, Ph.D. in Reading. She based this program by

structuring the tutor ing environment, methodologies and materials so that the student’s brain

determined how to structure the tutoring environment and what specific methodologies and

materials to use so that the student's brain is compelled to correct the errors in its neural network

for reading (Tadlock, 2004).

(Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills) DIBELS: were developed based on

measurement procedures for Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM), which were created by

Deno and associates through the Institute for Research and Learning Disabilities at the

University of Minnesota in the 1970’s-1980’s.

The DIBELS measures were specifically designed to assess the big ideas of early literacy:

Phonological Awareness, Alphabetic Principle, and Fluency with Connected Text, Vocabulary,

and Comprehension. The measures are linked to one another, both psychometrically and



10

theoretically, and have been found to be predictive of later reading proficiency. The combination

of these measures forms a reliable assessment system of early literacy development.

The DIBLES measurement of phonological awareness is the initial sounds fluency ( ISF) .

This test assesses a student’s skill at indentifying and producing the initial sound of a give word.

The phonemic segmentation fluency ( PSF), assesses a student’s skill at producing the

individual sounds within a given word, to measure alphabetic principle and phonics. The

Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF) is used to assess a student’s knowledge of letter -sound

combinations as well as their ability to blend letters together to form unfamiliar “nonsense” (e.g.,

lig,ped,nazz,lon,meb) words. Oral reading fluency (ORF) is accessed to determine if the student

is reading text in grade-level materials. Oral reading fluency and retell fluency (RTF) also

assesses a student’s comprehension of the verbally read text. The test to access a students’ ability

to accurately use a provided word in a sentence is Word Use Fluency (WUF) (Retrieved from

https://dibels.uoregon.edu/ on April 24, 2009).



11

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW

The research questions addressed in the literature review are the following:

1) Is Dyslexia different than other reading disabilities?

2) Does a multisensory remedial approach increase reading proficiency?

Sally Shaywitz (2003) in her book, Overcoming Dyslexia, stated that the number of

children receiving educational services for reading disabilities is only a small percentage of

students who would benefit from additional instruction. According to U.S. Department of

Education statistics 2 million out of 58 million school age children receive special education

services for a reading disability, however according to the National Assessment of Educational

Progress a 1998 survey reported 69 percent of fourth graders and 67 percent of eighth graders

were reading below proficiency levels. Shaywitz’s data obtained in her Connecticut study

indicates that reading disability affects approximately one out of five children.

What are the signs of dyslexia?

“Individuals with dyslexia exhibit difficulties in acquiring and using written language. It is a

myth that dyslexic individuals “read backwards,” although their spelling can look jumbled at

times because students have trouble remembering letter symbols for sounds and forming

memories for words. Other problems experienced by dyslexics include the following:

1. Learning to speak

2. Learning letters and their sounds

3. Organizing written and spoken language4. Memorizing number facts

5.

Reading quickly enough to comprehend

6. Persisting with and comprehending longer reading assignments

7. Spelling8. Learning a foreign language

9. Correctly doing math operations

Students who have difficulties with these skills are not necessarily dyslexic. Formal testing



12

of reading, language, and writing skills is the only way to confirm a diagnosis of suspected

dyslexia (International Society of Dyslexia, 2009, Dyslexia Basics Fact Sheet, p.2).”

How is dyslexia diagnosed?

An evaluation is needed to diagnose dyslexia. The evaluation should include intellectual and

academic achievement testing. The evaluation also should include an assessment of the language

skills that are closely linked to dyslexia. These include receptive (listening) and expressive

language skills, phonemic awareness, and also a student’s ability to rapidly name letters and

names. A student’s ability to read lists of words in isolation, as well as words in context, should

also be assessed (Hudson, High, & Otaiba, 2007).

. Public schools are relying on the process, Response to Intervention (RTI) to identify students

with learning disabilities. The RTI model is designed for schools to provide students that are not

progressing with the acquisition of critical early literacy skills with intensive and individualized

supplemental reading instruction. If the supplemental instruction does not aid the student in

reaching the established grade-level benchmarks and other developmental disorders are not

evident then the student may be identified as having a learning disability in reading and would be

eligible for special education services. The student could be further assessed through evaluations

that could lead to the determination if the reading disability was linked to dyslexia (Hudson,

High, & Otaiba, 2007).

At the The Lee Pesky Learning Center in Boise, Idaho uses the Comprehensive Test of

Phonological Processing to determine if a student has dyslexia. The test identifies individuals

whose phonological abilities are significantly below those of their age- and grade-level peers and

can determine strengths and weaknesses in phonological processing skills. It contains subtests

for elision, blending works, sound matching, memory for digits, non-word repetition, rapid color



13

naming rapid digit naming, rapid letter naming, and rapid object naming, blending non-words.

phoneme reversal, segmenting words and segmenting non-words (Personal correspondence, A.

Clohessy, April 23, 2009).

. Schools are relying on the process, Response to Intervention (RTI) to identify students with

learning disabilities. The RTI model is designed for schools to provide students that are not

progressing with the acquisition of critical early literacy skills with intensive and individualized

supplemental reading instruction. If the supplemental instruction does not aid the student in

reaching the established grade-level benchmarks and other developmental disorders are not

evident then the student may be identified as having a learning disability in reading and would be

eligible for special education services. The student could be further assessed through evaluations

that could lead to the determination if the reading disability was linked to dyslexia (Hudson,

High, & Otaiba, 2007).

Is Dyslexia Different Than Other Reading Disabilities?

The literature that supports the existence of dyslexia includes the study by Baillieux, et al.

(2007). Their research showed a possible involvement of the cerebellum in the development of

dyslexia.

In their study they investigated fifteen children diagnosed with dyslexia and seven control

children. They used functional neuroimaging (fMRI) to compare activation patterns between the

students with dyslexia and the control group when exposed to a noun-verb association model.

The results of this study showed a defect of the intra-cerebellar distribution of activity in the

dyslexic group leading the researchers to suggest a disorder of the transfer of information within

the cerebellar cortex (Baillieux, et al., 2007)

In her study on developmental dyslexia, Grigorenko (2001) states that there is evidence that



14

reading is “cooked” by the brain. She states that even though there is not been a unified brain

map of reading , some specific areas of the brain have been tied to reading-related cognitive

processes in a variety of laboratories on different samples. She further states that there is

indisputable evidence recorded suggesting there are specific regions of the genome that have

been identified as being closely involved in several reading processes. She notes that the field of

developmental dyslexia is the only area of genetic studies of human disabilities in which linkage

to the genome has been replicated in different laboratories in separate experiments. Evidence

from her studies suggest that the coexistence of developmental dyslexia with behavioral

disturbances as well as other learning disabilities indicate a manifestation of a deep underlying

anatomical syndrome .

In their book, Turner and Rack (2004), state that it is almost universally accepted that

dyslexia is a constitutional condition, highly probable that it is genetic and rooted in the central

nervous system. They further state there are defects from the retina through the midbrain to the

cerebral cortex and cerebellum that are involved in dyslexia.

Researchers have been able to show neuronal abnormalities in the brains of dyslectics with a

new type of magnetic resonance imaging (f MRI) that accurately locates three distinct areas of

involvement:(1) the left inferior frontal gyrus which he notes is the phoneme producer area, (2)

the left parieto-temporal lobe area used for word analyzing and the (3) left occipito-temporal

lobe area used for automatic detecting. Other studies on the brain, by Muter (2003), show that

brain regions that are important in analyzing phonological information may not be defective but

may not process information in a coordinated way (Spafford & Grosser, 2005).



15

Questions of Existence

Elliott and Gibbs (2008) generated controversy with their article refuting the existence of

dyslexia. They state that distinguishing between categories of ‘dyslexia’ , ‘poor reader’ or

‘reading disabled’ are scientifically unsupportable, arbitrary and possibly discriminatory.

In their article, they question whether dyslexia is a clinically or educationally meaningful term

for differentiating between students with reading difficulties. They base their opposition to a

dyslexic label based on studies by Popper that it is not possible to set, “unambiguous criteria of

demarcation at the genetic or functional boundaries of what is or what is not dyslexia (Popper,

1969).” They also use the study by Stanovich, “who demolishes the grounds of dyslexia based

on reading – IQ discrepancies because the term carries with it, so many unverifiable connotations

and assumptions that it should be abandoned (Stanovich, 1994).” As a result there is not a clear

boundary for a diagnostic category of dyslexic as to a less-skilled reader (Elliott & Gibbs, 2008).

The authors’ state that the list of possible underlying difficulties experienced by students

identified as dyslexic is diverse. A student with dyslexia may experience the following:

1.

Speech and language difficulties

2. Poor short-term or working memory

3. Difficulties in ordering and sequencing, clumsiness

4. A poor sense of rhythm

5. Limited speed of information processing,

6. Poor concentration

7. Inconsistent hand preference

8. Poor verbal fluency

9. Poor phonic skills

10.

Frequent use of letter reversals (d for b)11. Struggle with mental calculations

12. Have low self-esteem

13. Apprehension when being asked to read aloud (Elliott & Gibbs, 2008, p. 477).

The authors’ state that such a long list of difficulties does not offer differentiations and these

conditions may also occur with other developmental conditions, such as attention deficient



16

disorder or dyspraxia. Many of these difficulties are also typical of a younger normal reader who

reads at the same age level. They suggest that these problems are more characteristic of a certain

stage of reading development rather than a pathological feature (Elliott & Gibbs, 2008).

They also address the work of cognitive psychologists that see reading as a linguistic rather

than a visual skill and that phonological factors play a significant role for beginning readers. This

study influenced another author, Hitchens to postulate that dyslexia has grown largely due to

schools abandoning the systematic teaching of reading according to the method which is known

to work, synthetic phonics (Hitchens, 2007).

He states that students will learn in different ways and that is why some students learn to read

even with inadequate instruction and that others will not learn unless they are taught using

synthetic phonics (Hitchens, 2007).

Elliot and Gibbs (2008) maintain that the term dyslexia is an arbitrarily and socially defined

construct. They state that “for parents, in particular, a diagnosis that their child is dyslexic can be

a relief (Elliot, 2007, ¶¶ 3).’ He believes the diagnosis serves as an emotional, not a scientific

function. “There is a huge stigma attached to low intelligence. After years of working with

parents I have seen how they don’t want their child to be considered lazy, thick or stupid. If they

get called this medically recognized term, dyslexic, then it is a signal to all that it’s not to do with

intelligence (Elliot, 2007, ¶¶ 6).”

In their article questioning the existence of dyslexia the authors are concerned that there is an

inequitable use of resources, mainly for poor readers that do not have the dyslexic label. Elliot

and Gibbs found that the dyslexic label unfair because students that are poor readers are given

interventions when given the dyslexic label and were not given services when labeled as poor

readers (Elliot & Gibbs, 2008).



17

Reading Interventions

Interactive constructivist model of learning

Janice Leenhouts, the Read Right consultant for the Boise School District does not determine

if a student has dyslexia or other type of reading disability. Students are referred to the Read

Right intervention based on Curriculum Based Measures (CBM) and by teacher referrals (Janice

Leenhouts, personal communication, April 24, 2009).

The Read Right program was developed in 1991 by Dr. Dee Tadlock, Ph.D. in Reading. The

Read Right system of instruction was developed by integrating knowledge of brain research, an

interactive constructivist model of learning, and psycholinguistic reading theory. It is based on

brain research, learning theory, and reading theory. The Read Right Institute Inc. (2009) defines

the program through brain research, learning theory, reading theory, and the implications of these

theories on learning to read.

Brain Research

The function of the brain for learning is to build a neural network which guides the learned

skill in a consistent and reliable manner. If the network does not produce the desired results it is

necessary to change guidance of the neural network.

Learning Theory

The neurological guidance system for a skill such as walking or reading is created as a direct

result of the individual's initial instruction and experience in that skill. This guidance system

becomes automatic. If the guidance system was built with errors in it, the process that the

guidance system guides will be done in the same erroneous way each time the process is



18

performed.

The only way of modifying an erroneous a guidance system is to create a learning environment

in which the existing neurological network is replaced by new empirical information. In essence,

the brain has to be forced into remodeling the ineffective guidance system so it operates

appropriately and produces the desired result.

Reading Theory

If the brain does not use a predictive strategy, or does not integrate information correctly

reading speed becomes slow, comprehension is poor and retention of information is delayed. In

order to read well, a reader must focus on the text and use a predictive strategy that will ingrate

information from knowledge of vocabulary, language structure and phonics.

Implications for Learning

Dr. Dee Tadlock, Ph.D. in Reading, determined that struggling readers have developed a

neural network for reading that contains errors. They are reading the way their brains are

directing them to read, but they are not appropriately integrating the pre-existing knowledge

necessary for reading. The incorrectly-built neural network for reading must be remodeled so

the process of reading is guided appropriately. She then developed methodologies and material

to use to correct the errors in the neural network of the brain used in poor readers.

The Read Right program evolved from her research. This program is evidenced-based,

grounded in widely accepted learning theory as defined by Lev Vygotsky and Jean Piaget and

accepted knowledge about synaptic brain activation and the formation and use of neural

networks, first documented by Hebb, and later expanded upon and articulated by Johnson,

Allman, and LeDoux. In this theory, memory, attention, and executive functions, are integrated

to learning how to read and in the processing of reading.



19

Tadlock determined that memory, attention, and executive functions of the brain are not

included in reading development by other popular views such as the e skills-based view as

defined by the National Reading Council, National Reading Panel, and Shaywitz or the whole

language philosophy as defined by Goodman or Smith and she considers this omission a serious

shortcoming in application of those methods and should be further studied by the scientific

community.

The Read Right program has documented success with students that have the label of

dyslexia; however, it is not categorized as a multisensory program – one that uses verbal,

kinesthetic and tactile features.

Ms. Boles and others have found that the multisensory approach is effective in teaching

students that have dyslexia. This approach has also been found to be effective for all students

especially those that struggle to read (E. Boles, personal correspondence, March 28, 2009).

The multisensory approach is effectively used by any student because it incorporates many

senses- the more engaged the senses are, the more effective the learning. By using

visual/auditory/kinesthetic/tactile learning the student’s brain is activated in different ways and

the learning pathways that are constructed are more likely to be remembered and applied in the

future. Because dyslexia is primarily a problem with phonological processing (awareness of

sounds in language) these sounds and their symbols need to be taught effectively, and using

multisensory learning is the best way to do this (E. Boles, personal correspondence, March 28,

2009).

Orton-Gillingham Multisensory Reading Program

One multisensory reading program that has had documented success is the Orton-

Gillngham based multisensory reading program, Institute of Multi-Sensory Education (IMSE)



20

(Schefel, J.C. Shaw & R. Shaw, 2008). This program involves a daily, five-part 30 minute

intervention. The reading program includes organized, direct instruction in phonemic awareness

and application of phonetic rules and word-attack strategies.

The program begins with first teaching the fundamental structure of language, beginning

with simple sound-symbol relationships and progressing to phonetic rules and word attack

strategies using multisensory methods. The first part of the program begins with a three minute

drill. The three minute drill is a review of all phonetic concepts using all learning pathways:

visual, auditory, and kinesthetic. The second part of the program involves teaching a new

phoneme-rule using multisensory techniques for encoding and decoding words and writing or

reading sentences. Vocabulary and syllable division are taught using a multisensory method in

the third part of the program. The fourth aspect of the lesson is devoted to reviewing and

teaching non-phonetic and high-frequency words or both. The fifth portion incorporates

reciprocal teaching during oral reading. Reciprocal teaching is used to develop comprehension

by asking students to summarize, question, clarify and predict from text.

This multisensory approach’s success is documented in a study conducted in 2008 by the

Reading Improvement Institute. The Orton-Gillingham based reading program was evaluated

across three schools in a single school district. Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills

(DIBELS) assessments were used to measure the reading skills of 224 treatment and 476

comparison group first-grade students. The control group received traditional reading instruction

for 90 minutes a day in a core reading program and the treatment group received an additional

thirty minutes of additional instruction using the Orton-Gillingham based multisensory reading

program.

Classroom teachers from participating schools attended 30 hours of training in a one-week



21

summer session. The training content included student assessment and weekly lesson plans to

achieve student learning objectives.

The study applied multiple measures to assess the effectiveness of the training and the quality

of program implementation. Three of the classroom training sessions were observed and the

quality of the program was evaluated by the research team using a professional development

observation protocol.

The student’s progress was measured, using the Dynamic Indicator of Basic Early Literacy

reading assessment which assesses the five major skill areas in early reading identified by the

National Reading Panel which are phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency and

comprehension.

The conclusions from the study indicated the students that were given the supplemental

reading program led to accelerated acquisition of and an increase of proficiency in phonemic

awareness and alphabetic principles. The study stated that it is highly probable that these skills

will translate into improved reading outcomes in later grades (Scheffel, J.C.Shaw & R. Shaw,

2008).

A similar methodology would be used in this study. The difference in this study would be

that the students selected would be in the third and fourth grade that had already been identified

as have reading difficulties.



22

Chapter III: DESIGN OF STUDY

Purpose of this study

Students that struggle with reading require different interventions. Some interventions that

work with one group of students do not work with another group. One method that is

recommended for students with dyslexia is a multisensory approach. The intent of this study is

to determine if including a supplementary multisensory approach to a school’s remedial reading

intervention program will increase the students reading proficiency.

Research Design

The research design is experimental. The experiment format will include a pretest-posttest

control group. The participants would be randomly assigned from the current Read Right reading

program to receive an additional thirty minutes of the Orton-Gillingham multisensory

intervention reading curriculum. Pretest scores in the fall, would be determined by using the

DIBELS. DIBELS are a set of procedures and measures for assessing the acquisition of early

literacy skills from kindergarten through sixth grade. The DIBELS measures that would be used

in this study are: Initial Sounds Fluency (ISF), Letter Naming Fluency (LNF), Phoneme

Segmentation Fluency (PSF), Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF), DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency

(ORF), Retell Fluency (RTF), and Word Use Fluency (WUF). The DIBELS would again be

administered in the winter and spring. If students leave the program DIBELS would be

administered at the time of departure.



23

Subjects and Setting

In the Boise School District there are multiple elementary and junior high schools that use

Read Right as their reading intervention program. This study would include 50 of the third and

fourth grades students who are currently selected for the Read Right intervention at two

elementary schools. Half of these students would be randomly selected and given their daily

reading intervention for 45 minutes with the multisensory intervention, Orton-Gillingham,

following for thirty minutes. The other half of the study group would receive their 45 minutes of

Read Right instruction and would not participate in any additional multisensory instruction. This

study will include three teachers that are currently teaching the Read Right reading program at

two different elementary schools.

Method

Each of the classroom teachers would be trained in the multisensory remedial program,

Orton-Gillingham. The training will include thirty hours of instruction led by an Institute for

Multi-Sensory Education’s trainer. During the training the teachers will be trained in the theory

and practice of the IMSE method which is comprised of five parts. Training will also include

student assessment of IMSE skills, and guidelines for weekly lesson plans to achieve student

learning objectives. Materials for the teachers to implement the method will include syllable

division cards, red word screens, teacher card packs, as well as sand, sand trays, blending boards,

red word screens and controlled readers.

The IMSE trainer will meet with the teachers three times during the implementation of the

program. The trainer will assess the effectiveness of the training and the quality of the program.

The observation protocol will include assessment of the three-part drill, teaching a new concept,



24

organization, red words (phonetically irregular words), decoding of multisyllabic words, and

reading comprehension. Teachers will complete opinion surveys to convey their satisfaction with

the IMSE program.

Data Gathering

The data collected would include surveys from the participating teachers as well as student

achievement results. The teachers who implemented the multisensory program would

complete a survey that they would rate their implementation and satisfaction of the IMSE

program using a Likert scale from 1 to 5 (5:Excellent;4:Good;3:Satisfactory;2:Fair;and1:Poor).

The research team observers would also rate if the IMSE implementation was satisfactory.

The student results would be determined by using the DIBELS in the fall, winter, and spring

of the implementation year. The DIBELS measures that would be used in this study are: ISF,

LNF, PSF, NWF, ORF, RTF, and WUF. DIBELS were developed to measure recognized and

empirically validated skills related to reading outcomes. Each measure included in the DIBELS

assessment , has been thoroughly researched and demonstrated to be reliable and valid

indicators of early literacy development and predictive of later reading proficiency.

Statistics Used in Study

The Descriptive statistics used in this study would be mean and standard deviations for the

experimental group and the control group. An analysis of variance would be used to determine if

a significant difference occurs between the two groups in the test results from the DIBELS

measurements (e.g., ISF, LNF, PSF, NWF, ORF, RTF and WUF).



25

Limitations of the study

It would be difficult to determine if reading proficiency increased do to more time with

reading tutors or if it is the actual method being studied.

Threats to internal validity: A pretest-posttest control-group experiment usually has excellent

internal validity. The threat to this experiment is experimental mortality. Some students may

leave the school during the experiment. The characteristics of the students that leave the groups

will be noted and pre and post test scores may be included in the final analysis of the data. There

could also be teacher attrition. There also can be differences in the teacher implementation of

the IMSE method which could have influence on the study.

Threats to external validity: The multisensory reading supplemented program will be presented

in English; therefore non English speaking students could make the results difficult to generalize.

The ethnicity and languages should be noted in the study.

The purpose of this proposal is to conduct a study to determine if a multisensory reading

program does influence reading proficiency in students that exhibit reading difficulties. This

method is recommended by the International National Dyslexia Association (2009, Fact Sheet),

special education tutor (Emily Boles) and the Lee Pesky Learning Center consultants. The

research from this study is used to determine if this recommendation can be supported by

differences in students that are using the recommended district remedial reading program, Read

Right and a supplemental multisensory reading program such as Orton-Gillingham. The results

and conclusions of this study will be determined after the data has been collected and analyzed.



26

References

Allman, W. F. (1989). Apprentices of wonder: Inside the neural network revolution. New York:

Bantam Books.

Baillieux, H., Vandervliet, E., Manto, M., Parizel, P., & Deyn, P. D. (2009). Developmental

dyslexia and widespread activation across the cerebellar hemispheres. Brain and

Language, 108, 122-132.

Bernstein, S. E. (2009). Phonology, decoding, and lexical compensation in vowel spelling errors

made by children with dyslexia. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 22,

307-331.

DIBELS data system. Retrieved April 24, 2009, from https://dibels.uoregon.edu/.

Dylexia 'does not exist,' says professor . Retrieved March 21 2009, from

http://wwe.dailymail.co.uk.health/article-361080/Dyslexia-does-exist-professor.html.

Dyslexia information page. (2009, March 12). Retrieved March 21 2009, from National Institute

of Neurological Disorders and Stroke:

http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/dyslexia/dyslexia.htm.

Elliott, J. G., & Gibbs, S. (2008). Does dyslexia exist? Journal of Philosophy of Education, 42,

475-491.

Elliot, J.G. (2007) Julian Elliot, again--The "myth" of dyslexia. Retrieved March 21, 2009, from

I Speak of Dreams:

http://lizditz.typepad.com/i_speak_of_dreams/2007/05/julian_elliot_i.html

Fact sheet . (2009, March 10). Retrieved March 21 2009, from The International Dyslexia

Institute: <http://www.interdys.org/ewebeditpro5/upload/Definition_Fact_Sheet_3-10-



27

08.pdf>.

Figueredo, A. (1989). A study to determine the effectiveness of corrective reading programs on

nineteen students identified as mildly handicapped. Unpublished master's thesis, Boise

State University, Boise, Idaho.

Frank, R., Steve, R. D. S., Brian, D., Jay, C., & Steve, W. U. F. (2003). Theories of

developmental dyslexia: Insights from a multiple case study of dyslexic adults. Brain and

Language, 126, 841-865.

Grigorenko, E. L. (2001). Developmental dyslexia: An update on genes, brains, and

environments. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42, 91-125.

Hebb, D. O. (1949). The organization of behavior. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Hebb, D. O. (1966). A textbook of psychology (2nd ed.). Philadelpha, Pa: Saunders.

Hitchens, P. (2007, June 4). Does dyslexia exist? Retrieved March 21 2009, from

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2007/06/does_dyslexia_e.html.

Hudson, R. F., High, L., & Otaiba, S. A. (2007). Dyslexia and the Brain: What Does Current

Research Tell Us? Retrieved March 21 2009, from Learning disability online:

http://www.ldonline.org/article/14907.

Johnson, G. (1992). In the places of memory. New York: Vintage Books.

Lally, N. Jeff: The case study of a dyslexic child. Unpublished master's thesis, Boise State

University, Boise, Idaho.

LeDoux, J. (2002). Synaptic self-How our brains become who we are. New York: Penguin

Books.

Mercer, C. D. (1987, 1991). Students with learning disabilities. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Piaget, J. (1985). Equilibration of cognitive structures: The central problem of intellectual



28

development. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child. New York: Basic Books.

Popper, K. R. (1969) Conjectures and refutations: The growth of

Scientific Knowledge. London, England: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Read right methodology. Retrieved April 24, 2009, from

http://www.readright.com/system/index.html.

Reid, G. (2004). Dyslexia a complete guide for parents. West Sussex, England: John Wiley &

Sons.

Scheffel, D., Shaw, J., & Shaw, R. (2008). The efficacy of a supplementary multisensory reading

program for first-Grade students. Journal of Reading Improvement, 45. Retrieved April

24, 2009, from http://www.orton-

gillingham.com/documents/SupplementaryMultisensoryReadingProgram.pdf.

Shaywitz, S. (2004). Overcoming dyslexia. New York: Random House.

Spafford, C. A., & Grosser, G. S. (2005). Dyslexia and reading difficulties. Boston: Pearson.

Stanovich, K.E. (1994). Does dyslexia exist? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 2.4,

579-595.

Tadlock, D. (2004). Interactive constructivism and reading: The nature of neural networks

challenges the phonological processing hypothesis. Retrieved April 24, 2009, from

http://www.readright.com/rrspecial/whitepapers/Monograph.pdf.

Tebo, M. G. (2004). Zero tolerance, zero sense. ABA Journal, 86, 40-46.

Turner, M., & Rack, J. (2004). The study of dyslexia. New York, Boston, Dordrecht, London,

Moscow: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society-The development of higher psychological processes.



29

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

ed cifs 503 - thesis

Documents