Effects of Multi-sensory     1

 

Running head:  EFFECTS OF MULTI-SENSORY INSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

         Effects of Multi-sensory Instruction Techniques

on Memory and Learning in a Sixth Grade Population

Michelle L. Cox

St. Bonaventure University

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

           

             Effects of Multi-sensory     2          

Abstract

Research has shown a correlation between memory and learning and students’ exposure to multi-sensory instruction techniques (Orton, 1996).  Multi-sensory instruction sessions combine auditory, visual, and kinesthetic elements to reinforce each other for optimal learning.  Previous multi-sensory studies have been done with students with learning disabilities.  I believe that multi-sensory learning instruction is beneficial to all students, not just those with learning disabilities.  Therefore, my study was designed to test this theory on students without learning disabilities.  The experiment involved exposing various levels of multi-sensory learning techniques to observe their effects on memorization.  I hypothesized that as sensory exposure increased, learning measures would also increase.  The results (one-way ANOVA) indicated that, as predicted, subjects’ recall ability significantly increased as senses used increased. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

             

 

 

 

             Effects of Multi-sensory     3

Effects of Multi-sensory Instruction Techniques on Memory and Learning

            Multi-sensory instruction is a method of teaching or presenting material to students to evoke student’s use of multiple senses.  Multi-sensory instruction sessions are action oriented with auditory, visual, and kinesthetic elements reinforcing each other for optimal learning (Orton, 1996).

Previous research has indicated that there is a correlation between multi-sensory instruction and memory and learning in that students who exercise multiple senses during the learning process are better able to memorize and recall learned material on a short and long-term basis.  In a previous study done by Dev, Doyle, and Valente, (2002) multi-sensory systems of instruction were implemented to improve language and mathematics skill development in “at-risk” 6 and 7-year-olds in a first-grade classroom.  After two years of intervention with the multi-sensory approach, all of the students showed marked improvement and were found to be no longer in need of special education services (Dev, Doyle, & Valente, 2002).

Another such study was done by Houghton, Douglas, and Brigg (1998).  Their study tested the effects of a multi-sensory learning approach on students considered to have severe learning disabilities.  Students in this study were assessed on “Foundation Outcome Statement” (FOS) skills before and again after being exposed to an inter-active multi-sensory environment (MSE).  A repeated measures analysis of variance revealed a statistically significant increase in the number of FOS skills from Pre MSE to Post MSE (Houghton, Douglas, & Brigg, 1998).

 

             Effects of Multi-sensory     4

In this study, I also implemented a multi-sensory instruction approach to determine its effects on memory.  However, my population was 6th grade students who were not considered to have any learning disabilities. Each of three groups of participants, which represented my independent variable (senses), was exposed to a different level of multi-sensory instruction techniques to observe its effects on memorization and recall ability.  This recall served as the dependent variable in the study and was operationally defined by the number of words recalled. A one-way ANOVA was used to analyze the data.

            My hypothesis is that the more senses exercised during word sequence presentation, the more likely students are to recall more words.  In other words, I expect students in Group 2, who used the combination of auditory and visual skills during word presentation to be able to recall more words than students in Group 1, who used only auditory skills during the presentation period.  Furthermore, I expect students in Group 3,

who used not only the combination of auditory and visual skills, but also kinesthetic skills during word presentation, to be able to recall more words from the word list than either Group 1 or Group 2.   

 

Methods

Subjects

            Fifteen 6th grade students from a public school were the subjects in my study.  Of the participants in the study, nine were female students and six were male students.  None

                                                                                                 Effects of Multi-sensory     5

of the participants were considered to have learning disabilities.  Participants had permission from parents or guardians to participate in the study and were treated in accordance with ethical psychological principles (APA Publication Manual 2001).

Materials

            The study was carried out in an elementary school classroom.  Large flashcards were used to present the 12- word sequence.  Paper and pencils were given to students to write down recall information.

Design and Procedure           

            Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups that served as the three levels of the independent variable –applied senses.  As each group came in I explained that I would be presenting to them a list of twelve words and that I wanted them to try to remember as many of the words as possible.  Students in Group 1 were read aloud a word sequence.  Upon completion of the word sequence, students were given paper and pencils and asked to write down as many of the words as they could recall from the word sequence.  Students in Group 2 were read aloud the same sequence of words, but were simultaneously shown flashcards containing the words. Students in

Group 2 were also given paper and pencils and were asked to write down as many of the words as they could recall from the list.  Students in Group 3 were read aloud the

sequence and were shown the flashcards, but in addition were asked to write down each word from the word sequence as it was presented to them.  Written word lists

were removed from Group 3 upon completion.  Students in Group 3 were then given another piece of paper and were asked to write down as many of the words as they could

                                                                                                 Effects of Multi-sensory     6

recall from the word list, just as Group 1 and Group 2 had done.  Students from all three groups completed the recall lists individually and I collected them upon completion.  Students were then debriefed thus completing the experimental stage of the study.         

 

Results

The results of my study were consistent with previous research concerning multi-sensory learning techniques.  Each group’s (n=5) recall scores were totaled and averaged.  Group 1(auditory) had M = 6 (SD = 1.414).  Group 2 (auditory & visual) had M = 7.8 (SD = 1.095).  Group 3 (auditory, visual, & kinesthetic) had M = 9.2 (SD = 1.304). A between-subjects (independent) one-way ANOVA was used to analyze the means.  There was statistically significant difference between the groups who each exercised a different number of senses F (2,12) = 7.878, p < .007 Critical F for .01 is 6.93 (see Figure 1).              Additionally, simple effects t-test results indicated that the difference between Groups 1&2 was statistically significant (t (4) = -2.250, p < .05) using a one-tail table.  The difference between Groups 1&3 was also statistically significant using a one-tail table (t (4) = -3.720, p < .006).  However, the difference between Groups 2&3 was not statistically significant (t (4) = -1.838, p < 0.103) (see table 1). Because the difference between Groups 1&2 and Groups 1 & 3 was statistically significant, it is apparent that the use of two senses during material presentation leads to improved recall ability, and that the use of three senses leads to even more recall ability than the use of just two senses.  Therefore, it is apparent that the use of just one sense during material presentation is not sufficient for optimal learning.                                                                                       

                                                                                                 Effects of Multi-sensory     7

Discussion

            Previous studies have been done concerning multi-sensory learning approaches to learning with students classified as learning disabled.  The goal of my study was to determine whether or not the benefits of multi-sensory instruction techniques applied to other students as well.  Therefore, I opted to replicate previous studies, changing the population studied, to a class of sixth grader students who were not considered to have any learning disabilities. 

My research and data were in agreement with previous studies done on multi-sensory instruction techniques.  As I predicted, the group that exercised auditory and visual senses (Group 2) during word presentation, had a higher Mean score on the recall task than the group who just exercised auditory senses alone.  The group who exercised all three senses (Group 3) during word presentation had a higher Mean score on the recall task than both Group 1 and Group 2.  However, when I did T-tests to examine the differences between the groups, I found that there was not a statistically significant difference between Groups 1 & 2 and between Groups 2& 3, but that there was a statistically significant difference between Group 1 and Group 3.  This indicates that the use of just two senses during material presentation has a significant effect on recall scores.  In other words, it did not matter which two senses were exercised - the

combination of two senses as opposed to just one, produced higher overall recall scores. Consequently, while the use of multiple senses by students during learning instruction is advantageous, even just the use of two senses combined is sufficient to yield better recall ability.  Furthermore, the use of multi-sensory instruction techniques is not only

                                                                                                 Effects of Multi-sensory     8

beneficial to students classified as having learning disabilities, but to students who are not considered to have learning disabilities as well.

            For further studies, I would like to compare recall ability between groups of students who each receive multi-sensory learning techniques that require the use of just two senses, with the two senses varying for each group.  For example one group of students would exercise auditory and visual senses, while another group exercised auditory and kinesthetic senses.  Perhaps, another group might exercise auditory and vocal senses.  It would be interesting to see whether or not there was a statistically significant difference between the groups.  Quite possibly each group would yield relatively similar mean scores.  If this were the case, then multi-sensory learning techniques would not only be beneficial to all involved in the learning process, but they could also be tailored to best suit the learners involved.  In other words, students who prefer to practice auditory and visual skills would benefit equally well as students who opt to exercise auditory and kinesthetic or auditory and vocal skills, making the learning process not only more successful, but also more enjoyable for all involved.      

                                                                                              

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                 Effects of Multi-sensory     9

References

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,  327-332.

Houghton, S., Douglas, G., & Brigg, J. (1998).  An Empirical Evaluation of an  

     Interactive Multi-Sensory Environment for Children with Disability.  Journal of

     Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 23, 267-279.

Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association.  (2001). (4th ed.).

     Washington, DC.

Orton, J.L.  (1966).  The Orton- Gillingham Approach.  In J. Money (Ed.)  The Disabled

     Reader:  Education of the Dyslexic Child (pp. 119-145).  Baltimore:  Johns Hopkins

     University Press.

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1.  T- test results with standard deviations.  Where is the table?

 

 

                                                                                             

                                                                                             

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                                        

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                            Effects of Multi-sensory     10

Figure Caption

Figure 1.  Mean recall ability based on varying levels of multi-sensory instruction techniques. 

 

 

 

                                                                                              

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                                            

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                                         

                                                               <Bookmark(9)> Effects of Multi-sensory     11

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1   Auditory

2   Auditory & Visual

3   Auditory, Visual, & Kinesthetic

 

 

 

       

 

 

 

                                                                                               Effects of Multi-sensory     11

 

T- test Results with Standard Deviations

 

 

Paired samples t test on AUD vs AUDVIS with 5 cases

 

  Mean AUD          =        6.000

  Mean AUDVIS       =        7.800

    Mean Difference =       -1.800   95.00% CI  =     -4.188 to      0.588

      SD Difference =        1.924                        t =       -2.092

                                         df =     4    Prob =        0.105

 

 

Paired samples t test on AUD vs AUDVISKIN with 5 cases

 

  Mean AUD          =        6.000

  Mean AUDVISKIN    =        9.200

    Mean Difference =       -3.200   95.00% CI  =     -4.239 to     -2.161

      SD Difference =        0.837                        t =       -8.552

                                         df =     4    Prob =        0.001

 

Paired samples t test on AUDVIS vs AUDVISKIN with 5 cases

 

  Mean AUDVIS       =        7.800

  Mean AUDVISKIN    =        9.200

    Mean Difference =       -1.400   95.00% CI  =     -3.478 to      0.678

      SD Difference =        1.673                        t =       -1.871

                                         df =     4    Prob =        0.135

 

<Bookmark(6)>

 

 

 

 

 

 

<Bookmark(1)>

 

 

<Bookmark(2)>

 

 

<Bookmark(3)>

 

 

 

 

AUD

AUDVIS

AUDVISKIN

N of cases

            5

            5

            5

Minimum

            4.000

            6.000

            8.000

Maximum

            7.000

            9.000

            11.000

Mean

            6.000

            7.800

            9.200

Standard Dev

            1.414

            1.095

            1.304

 

 

Group Aud v. Audvis            Group Aud v. Audviskin       Group Audvis v. Audviskin

                t = -2.250                               t = -3.720                               t = =1.838