Murch Final Paper 4-20-17

Running head: MULTISENSORY CENTERS IN A SPECIAL EDUCATION CLASSROOM
THE EFFECTS OF MULTISENSORY CENTERS ON STUDENT ENGAGEMENT, SIGHT

WORD RECOGNITION, AND DECODING SKILLS IN A SPECIAL EDUCATION
CLASSROOM
A Research Project
Presented to the
Faculty of the School of Education
Viterbo University
Catherine G. Bell-Robertson, Ph.D.

Research Advisor
Susan Hughes, Ed. D.

Coordinator of Educational Research
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Arts in Education
by
Stephanie Murch
July, 2017
MULTISENSORY CENTERS IN A SPECIAL EDUCATION CLASSROOM 2
Abstract
This paper examines the effects of multisensory centers on student engagement, sight word
recognition, and decoding in a special education classroom. I was concerned that my students
had a difficult time staying engaged, progressing with reading skills, and recognizing sight words
during the hour-long instructional reading time. The purpose of this action research study was to
determine the effects of implementing multisensory reading centers on sight word recognition,
decoding, and engagement. The participants in this study included three male students ranging
from seven to eight years old who attended a Pre-K though 6th-grade elementary school in
Midwest Iowa. All participants had an Individual Education Program to guide their instruction.
This action research study took place September through December of 2016 in the special
education classroom. The student participants were observed during this time. They took a pre-
and post- survey to rate their engagement and feelings. Students were also assessed bi-weekly to
determine achievements with decoding skills and sight word recognition. The results of this
research study showed that student engagement, decoding, and sight word recognition improved
throughout the course of the study. Students were more engaged during the use of multisensory
reading centers than before the centers were introduced. The results of the student survey also
indicated that students felt more confident in their reading abilities after the implementation of
multisensory reading centers. Overall, the use of multisensory reading centers in the classroom
was beneficial to student learning and will be implemented in the future.

The Effects of Multisensory Centers on Student Engagement, Sight Word Recognition, and
Decoding in a Special Education Classroom
Introduction
Teachers face many challenges in their daily effort to meet the needs of and ensure
success for a diverse group of students, including students who are inattentive and have
trouble staying focused and on task. All students, especially those with ADHD, need
exercise; it assists them with concentration and provides an outlet for healthy impulse
discharge, helping to control impulsivity. (Mulrine, Prater, & Jenkins, 2008, p. 16)
I have been a kindergarten through second grade special education teacher the past four years
and I have seen incredibly diverse learners who each have their own learning and behavior
needs. At the beginning of each school year, it takes time to unravel each students needs.
Recently, my biggest challenge was supporting students who had attention disorders or ADHD
and were not engaged in the classroom. Teachers would ask, How is an elementary student
supposed to learn when they are making noises, getting up from their seat, and looking around
the room while I am teaching a lesson?
I had been struggling as a special education teacher to support a group of first grade boys
who had a difficult time attending and behaving during the hour-long math and reading class in
the general education classroom. I was told by professors in college to keep students who have
special education services in the general education classroom as much as possible, co-teach and
support them in the least restrictive environment. I had seen inclusion benefit students. But, as a
first grade student once said to me in an interview about why he was misbehaving in the general
education classroom and not attending during reading, I want to have reading in your classroom
it is embarrassing going to the back table and not doing what the other kids are doing (in the
general education classroom). I was overwhelmed with emotions when I heard what this student
was feeling, I do not want any of my students to feel embarrassed and especially in the first
grade. These were feelings that many students with learning disabilities and/or attention
disorders face. I knew I had to change something to enhance the instruction that these students
were receiving so that they could be successful no matter what setting the instruction was in.
Since the general education classroom did not seem to be the best fit for these learners,
the IEP team had decided to pull the students into my special education classroom during the
entire math and reading period. When pulling students into my special education classroom for a
full subject area such as reading and/or math, it is difficult to meet all of their learning styles and
keep them engaged for such a long period. This transition into the special education classroom
took effect immediately, which made it difficult to prepare and set up the enriched instruction
that they needed to meet all of their needs. Each student struggled with different skills, they were
off task, and they all learned differently.
I brought this difficulty up with other teachers, the Area Education Agency
representative, and special education teachers. We discussed ways that could keep the students
engaged while I teach one on one or with a group of two students. The AEA representative
suggested trying to implement centers so that I could create one on one intense instruction while
the other students were independently engaged practicing other skills. This encouraged me to
implement centers into my classroom, but I continued to question how I could meet all of their
learning styles. To help support their learning styles, I thought about the possibility of
implementing multisensory learning centers that have auditory, visual, or kinesthetic learning at
each center. This could help me keep the students engaged by allowing them to choose the
center that fits their learning style best. Multisensory centers could potentially allow time for
intense instruction that meets the Iowa Core Standards.
Problem Statement
The problem that I identified in my classroom was that a group of my students were not
engaged during the hour chunk of time that they were in my classroom for reading. They all were
learning different skills and had different learning styles. I wanted to investigate better ways to
engage students with attention disorders and meet their different learning needs. If we address
the senses we will address learning styles A multi-sensory approach to your work will increase
the opportunity for audience retention and recall (Riolo, 2014, p. 24). If I implemented multi-
sensory reading centers into my classroom it might work to support student engagement, as I
could teach intense one on one instruction. If my students were engaged, then they could
potentially learn and retain more sight words and hone their decoding skills. This could make
them better readers and decrease the gap between their peers.
Purpose of the Research
My students had a difficult time staying engaged, progressing with reading skills, and
recognizing sight words, so I wanted to investigate if using multi-sensory reading centers could
assist their attention and growth in reading. The purpose of this action research study was to
determine the effects of implementing multi-sensory reading centers on sight word recognition,
decoding, and engagement of 2nd grade students with attention needs and special education
services.
Research Questions and Sub-Questions
This action research study was created to address the overarching question: What are the
effects of implementing multi-sensory reading centers on student engagement of 2nd grade

students with special education services? Along with the overarching question, I posed two sub-
questions that included: (a) How do multi-sensory reading centers affect sight word recognition
and (b) How do multi-sensory reading centers affect student decoding or reading skills? The
independent variable was implementing multi-sensory reading centers and the dependent
variables were student engagement, sight word recognition, and decoding skills.
Definitions
For the purpose of this study, reading centers were referred to as students working
independently or in pairs on an activity that the teacher had set up beforehand. The students
worked at these centers while the teacher was working with other students. These reading center
activities changed throughout the study. Second, multisensory learning referred to different
learning styles such as visual, auditory, or kinesthetic. Multisensory learning was integrated into
the reading centers for this study. The FRY sight word list referred to the sight word list that my
school district taught beginning readers. The second grade goal for the end of the year was for
the students to be able to read the first 400 FRY words. ADHD is defined as a persistent
inattention and/or hyperactivity-impulsivity that appears to be more severe than peers of the
same age and developmental level (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Last, IEP stands
for Individualized Education Program; this is an individualized program that supports students
who receive special education services.
Limitations
For this action research study, there were limitations that may have affected the results of
the study. First, the participants of this study were chosen due to convenience and not by random
sample. These students were the second grade students on my roster for that school year. Second,
this was the first time that I introduced multi-sensory reading centers to this group and since the
length of this was only one semester long, it may not have been enough time to show an impact
on the students reading skills and behaviors. Last, my students attendance and the lack of taking
medication or changing medication was unpredictable which may have impacted their growth.
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.
Methods
Introduction
The purpose of this mixed method action research study was to determine the effects of
multisensory reading centers on student on-task/off-task behaviors. I also investigated the
following sub-questions: (a) how do multisensory reading centers affect sight word recognition?
and (b) how do multisensory reading centers affect student decoding skills? The independent
variable was implementing multisensory reading centers and the dependent variables
were student engagement, sight word recognition, and decoding skills.
Participants
The participants in this study were second grade students who were a convenience
sample since they were students on my roster for the 2016-2017 academic school year. The
subjects included three male students ranging in age from seven to eight years old. The
participants were in one second grade general education classroom, but had an Individual
Education Program (IEP) to guide their instruction and support them with special education
instruction. Two of the participants were Caucasian and one was African American. All
participants qualified for free and/or reduced lunch at the school that they attended and were
open enrolled or attended this school due to parent choice. Two out of three of these students
were diagnosed with ADHD and took medication to assist them with concentration in the
classroom. The third student had difficulty as well focusing and staying on task in the classroom.
These participants all received 50 minutes of specially designed instruction in the area of reading
from me (the special education teacher). They also received specially designed instruction in the
areas of math and writing. The participants received para-educator support all day in the general
education classroom to modify classroom assignments and assist them with daily classroom
routines and attention.
The study took place in a Midwestern school district where the city population was
40,566. The Midwestern Iowa school district was currently serving 5,382 students preschool
through twelfth grade. There were a total of 398 teachers. Of the 5,382 students, 2.5% were
English Language Learners, 11.3% of the students currently received special education services,
24.7% qualified for free and reduced lunch, the district served 15.8% minorities, and 19 native
languages were spoken. The participants attended a preschool through sixth grade school that
served around 600 students.
Procedure
The intention of this action research study was to determine the effects of multisensory
reading centers on student engagement, sight word recognition, and decoding skills. The study
collected identical quantitative data from the three student participants who were chosen due to
convenience and received specially designed instruction in the area of reading.
This action research study took place September through December of 2016 in the special
education classroom. Prior to this action research study, the student participants completed a
pre-assessment, which assessed the following areas: (a) on/off-task behavior, (b) sight word
recognition, and (c) decoding words, to establish a baseline. The pre-assessment was given in
September of 2016 and following the research, post-assessments were given in December of
2016.
Before the study began, students were assessed on engagement during special education
reading time. I collected data and took observational notes during special education reading
lessons regarding student engagement. These observations were assessed by using an on and off
task behavior tally sheet as well as other performance observation notes (see Appendix A). In a
small group, student participants also took a survey to rate their engagement and feelings during
the special education reading time (see Appendix B). These observations and survey allowed the
comparison of student engagement before multisensory centers and after implementing
multisensory centers.
Additionally, before the study began, students were assessed individually on sight word
recognition and decoding skills. Sight words were assessed using the FRY word list and data
sheet (see Appendix C) and each participants score was determined by counting how many
words they read correctly. Sight word recognition also was assessed using the participants
FAST progress monitoring data and field notes during small group reading instruction. Decoding
was assessed before implementing multisensory centers by using decoding word flip books that
were at the students level. Data was documented on a decoding assessment sheet (see Appendix
D). The participants score was determined by counting how many words were read correctly out
of how many total words and creating the percentage score. Additionally, running records (see
Appendix E) taken during guided reading were looked at to gather information regarding the
students current decoding skills.
On the first day of the study, participants were introduced to the multisensory sight word
centers. All participants questions were answered and expectations were set to be able to start
utilizing the centers right away. During the study, students were able to choose which center they
would like to go to for each window of time and then rotate as needed. I assessed students
individually every two weeks to monitor their engagement, sight word recognition, and decoding
skills by using the FRY word assessment, FAST progress monitoring data, field notes, running
records, decoding flipbooks, as well as observe participants on/off task behaviors during
After the research study was complete, participants were assessed again using the same
assessments as prior to the study: (a) the Fry sight word assessment and data sheet, (b) decoding
flip books, (c) the FAST reading assessment, and (d) the student engagement survey. All of these
assessments were compared to the participants scores from pre multisensory centers to post
Research Tools
I used multiple quantitative and quantitative tools to determine the effects of multisensory
reading centers on student engagement, sight word recognition, and decoding skills. The
following are tools that I used to collect data concerning student progress on sight word
recognition and decoding skills: (a) the Fry sight word assessment and data sheet, (b) decoding
flip books, (c) the FAST reading assessment (d) running records, and (e) field notes. These
assessments were used naturalistically and without any manipulation to observe progress of sight
word recognition and decoding skills to determine the effects of multisensory centers on reading
skills. Participants were called one by one to the group table in the special education classroom
to be assessed on sight word recognition and decoding skills. Additionally, data was collected
observationally on student engagement, specifically on/off task behavior, while the students were
at the multisensory centers. The tool that was used to assess student engagement was an on and
off task behavior tally sheet as well as any other performance observation notes. Supplementary
data regarding student engagement was collected through a student engagement survey and field
notes during the course of the study. All of the data were collected during small group reading in
the special education setting.
Data Analysis
This action research study collected quantitative and qualitative data to determine the
effects of multisensory centers on student engagement, sight word recognition, and decoding
skills for three second grade students with special education services. All quantitative data was
analyzed using descriptive statistics which included the mean, median, and mode to compare the
participants growth from the baseline to post action research study. Qualitative observation data
from my field journal was analyzed for themes. Data were collected and reported in graphic
format and/or narrative structure to provide information regarding the impact of multisensory
centers on student engagement and reading skills. By collecting multiple means of data I was
able to triangulate data to look for commonalities and themes.
Results
Introduction
The purpose of this action research study was to determine the effects of
implementing multi-sensory reading centers on sight word recognition, decoding, and
engagement of 2nd grade students with attention needs and special education services. This action
research case study took place with a group of three student participants from the beginning of
September, 2016 to the middle of December, 2016. For the duration of this study, three research
questions were addressed. The overarching question that guided my action research study was:
What are the effects of implementing multi-sensory reading centers on student engagement of
2nd grade students with special education services? Along with the overarching question, I had
posed two sub-questions that included: (a) How do multi-sensory reading centers affect sight
word recognition and (b) How do multi-sensory reading centers affect student decoding or
reading skills? The independent variable was implementing multi-sensory reading centers and
the dependent variables were student engagement, sight word recognition, and decoding skills.
The first question examined was the effect of implementing multi-sensory reading
centers on student engagement of 2nd grade students with attention needs and special education
services. Bi-weekly, prior to the intervention, students were assessed on engagement during
special education reading time. I collected data and took observational notes regarding student
engagement. These observations were assessed by using an on and off task behavior tally sheet.
Student participants also took a survey pre and post intervention to rate their engagement and
feelings during this time. The results of the students on and off task behaviors and students
surveys are represented in Figures 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Student One On and Off Task Behavior

6
Number of Tallies 3
0
Sept Oct. #1 Oct. #2 Nov. #1 Nov. #2 Dec. #1 Dec. #2
Figure 1. Student Ones bi-weekly on and off task behavior observation results.
Student Two On and Off Task Behavior

6
Number of Tallies 3
0
Sept. Oct. #1 Oct. #2 Nov. #1 Nov. #2 Dec. #1 Dec. #2
Figure 2. Student Twos bi-weekly on and off task behavior observation data.
Student Three On and Off Task Behavior

6
Number of Tallies 3
0
Sept. Oct. #1 Oct. #2 Nov. #1 Nov. #2 Dec. #1 Dec. #2
Figure 3. Student Threes bi-weekly on and off task behavior observation data.
Student Survey
Pre Post
11
4 4
3
Confident Uncertain Not Confident

0
Figure 4. Student participants engagement and feelings survey pre and post intervention scores
totaled.
In addition to the On and Off Task Behaviors and the Student Survey, students were also
observed during the special education reading time. I took observational field notes during
special education reading lessons regarding student engagement. Prior to implementation of the
multisensory reading centers, during the special education reading time, Student One was off
task by interrupting the teacher and peers multiple times. During that same observation time,
Student Three was lying in a chair with a book but did not appear to be reading. Soon after,
Student Three asked to leave the classroom to use the restroom. During the implementation of
multisensory reading centers, student participants would be excited before school and they would
ask when they would be able to work at the centers again. Each time the students came into the
special education classroom, the first thing that they would do is make positive and excited
remarks about the centers, such as, Can I have another turn at this center? and Are we getting
a new center today? I observed students fully engaged in the multisensory reading centers. For
example, while Student One was at the Play-Doh multisensory center I heard Student One saying
the sounds t-o-p for the word top. Student One also stated, I cannot believe I finished the
whole page. Look! Are you proud of me? During a different day the researcher heard Student
Two excitedly stating, I spelt the word hen! He was also often observed humming and singing
while searching for sight words throughout the room and expressed joy as he found each word.
Student Three was observed on task during a sight word multisensory center and happily stated,
I just need to find 2 more words!
The purpose of the first sub-question was to determine how multisensory reading centers
affect student sight word recognition. Prior to the study students were assessed individually on
sight word recognition. Sight words were assessed by using the FRY word list and data sheet.
Each participants score was determined by counting how many words they read correctly. Sight
word recognition was also assessed using the participants FAST progress monitoring data. The
results of the students sight word recognition are represented in Figures 5 and 6.
Sight Word Recognition

September December
118
97 96
65 65
32
Student One Student Two Student Three
Figure 5. Student participants scores from the pre and post FRY Sight Word Assessment.
FAST Progress Monitoring Scores

10/5/2016 12/8/2016
28
24
15 15
14
EW DF ZH
Figure 6. Student participants words read per minute using the FAST progress monitoring data.
The purpose of the second sub-question was to determine how multisensory reading
centers affect student word decoding skills. Decoding was assessed before implementing
multisensory centers by using decoding word flip books that were at the students level. Data
were documented on a decoding assessment sheet. The participants scores were determined by
counting how many words were read correctly out of how many total words and creating the
percentage score. Additionally, running records were taken during guided reading and was
looked at to gather word accuracy percentages. The results of the students word decoding skills
are represented in Figures 7 and 8.
Word Decoding
September December
100%
90%
80%
50%
42%
33%
Figure 7. Student participants percentage of words read correct on the pre and post word flip
book decoding assessments.

Running Record
Pre Post
97% 100% 97%
72% 74%
69%
Figure 8. Student participants running record assessment results. Results are showed as the
percent of words read correctly by each student participant.
Conclusion
The purpose of this action research study was to determine the effects of
implementing multi-sensory reading centers on sight word recognition, decoding, and
engagement of 2nd grade students with attention needs and special education services. The
results of this research study showed that student engagement, decoding, and sight word
recognition improved throughout the course of the study. Students were more engaged during the
use of multisensory reading centers than before they were introduced, according to the on and off
task behavior data. When comparing the pre-intervention and post-intervention scores on the
word decoding, running record, and sight word recognition assessments, the results indicated that
the students demonstrated growth on both sight word recognition and decoding words. The
results of the student survey also indicated that students felt more confident in their reading
abilities after the implementation of multisensory reading centers. The discussion section will
examine each of my research questions and will further summarize these results.
Discussion
Introduction
I had been struggling as a special education teacher to support a group of first grade boys
who had a difficult time attending and behaving during an hour-long math and reading class in
the general education classroom. I had been told by professors in college to keep students who
have special education services in the general education classroom as much as possible to co-
teach and support them in the least restrictive environment. I had seen inclusion benefit students
in my previous experiences. However, these students had a difficult time staying on task and not
feeling embarrassed in the general education classroom. I knew I had to change something to
enhance the instruction that these students were receiving so that they could be successful in
reading.
This encouraged me to implement centers into my special education classroom, but I
continued to question how I could meet all of my students learning styles and need for
engagement. To help support their learning styles, I thought about the possibility of
implementing multi-sensory learning centers that have auditory, visual, or kinesthetic learning at
each center. I thought that multi-sensory centers could potentially allow time for intense one on
one instruction while the other students were fully engaged with the centers.
My students had a difficult time staying engaged, progressing with reading skills, and
recognizing sight words. I decided to investigate if using multi-sensory reading centers would
assist their attention and growth in reading. The purpose of this action research study was to
determine the effects of implementing multi-sensory reading centers on sight word recognition,
decoding, and engagement of 2nd grade students with attention needs and special education
services.
The first question examined was the effect of implementing multi-sensory reading
centers on student engagement of 2nd grade students with attention needs and special education
services. Bi-weekly and prior to the intervention, students were assessed on on and off task
behaviors during special education reading time. I collected data and took observational notes
regarding student engagement. These observations were assessed by using an on and off task
behavior tally sheet. Student participants took a pre intervention and post intervention survey to
show their engagement and feelings during this time. After analyzing the on and off task
behavior data, it was determined that all students increased the amount of on task engagement.
Students One and Three became less involved when the new centers wore off and more
engaged when I introduced the new centers during the intervention. Student Two was involved
consistently throughout the intervention implementation. I believe this implementation of multi-
sensory reading centers had an impact on students engagement during reading, which helped my
students to make growth during the duration of this study. I felt this growth was mostly because
the centers were hands on and allowed the students to get up and move. These centers addressed
different learning styles and required students to apply reading skills repeatedly in a fun and
consistently changing way. My studys results indicated that this kept the students interest level
high and assisted the students engagement.
After analyzing the student survey data, it was determined that all students feelings
during the special education reading time increased from not confident to uncertain and
confident. When students scored themselves on the student survey as uncertain it may be implied
that students were not confident in understanding the question and further clarification may have
needed to be addressed with students. I also believe it could it be that they moved up from not
confident to uncertain and they just didnt make the entire switch to confident.
In addition to the on and off task behavior and the student survey data, I took
observational notes during the special education reading time. After analyzing these field notes,
it was determined that pre intervention, students were showing very little excitement and
engagement in their independent reading time. While I was working with a small group at the
table, other students were to be independently reading their repeated reading books. During this
time, students were getting up and disrupting my teaching since they were not engaged in what
they were doing. Some students would sit in the fun chairs and put a blanket over them so that I
could not see if they were reading. They would also ask to use the restroom or get a drink
frequently. For the majority of the independent reading time students were not reading or
practicing any reading skills. During the intervention, I observed the students fully engaged in
the reading centers and I could hear the students making positive comments as well as sounding
out words and practicing different reading skills. I was shocked with the change that happened in
my classroom and with how quickly it happened. I could tell that this independent reading time
was dramatically different from before. Students would repeatedly ask if they got another turn at
a center. Each time I would look up during my teaching I was amazed at how engaged each
student was during the multisensory centers. Even when it was not reading time, my students
were asking when they get to do the centers again or I would see them looking at the new centers
that I was introducing that day and excitedly talking to each other about them. My principal had
even been in to observe these students during reading and was shocked as well with the way each
student was engaged and knew exactly what to do during independent reading time.
Scout (2009) focused on how utilizing reading centers effected reading instruction for a
class of 17 students. During the study, Scout introduced literacy centers that supported one or
two students at most. 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 intervention, I
switched old centers out with new centers once I noticed that the student engagement was
declining. I also asked students their feelings about the centers to determine if they were still
excited about the centers. I believe the switching out old centers and bringing in new centers was
a factor in what increased my students engagement during the duration of this intervention.
The purpose of the first sub-question was to determine how multisensory reading centers
affected student sight word recognition. After analyzing the students FRY sight word
assessment, it was determined that all students sight word recognition increased pre intervention
to post intervention, as shown in Figure 5. Student One increased from recognizing sixty-five
words to ninety-seven words showing a growth of thirty-two words during the intervention.
Student Two began the intervention knowing ninety-six words and grew twenty-two words
during the intervention having an ending word recognition of one hundred and eighteen words.
Student Three began the intervention recognizing thirty- two words, the fewest words of the
group, to growing thirty-three words during the intervention having an ending word recognition
of sixty-five words. I believe students sight word recognition increased due to the daily
repetition of the skill. Typically, these students did not get a lot of independent practice due to
the lack of engagement. Once the centers became multisensory, the student engagement
increased which meant they then received more practice each day.
In addition to the FRY sight word assessment, students sight word recognition was
determined by analyzing the FAST progress monitoring data. After analyzing the FAST progress
monitoring data, it was determined that all students made progress on their one minute FAST
weekly progress monitoring, as shown in Figure 6. While analyzing this data, students did drop
lower than previous scores, but would always score higher the next assessment. I believe this
was due to the difficulty level of each progress monitoring test. Some of the tests appeared to be
more difficult than others and these were the tests that students scores dropped.
Many studies focused on multisensory components for students who are struggling to
meet grade level skills. Such as in Campbell and Cookes 2008 study, student participants were
given instruction in the school wide curriculum. In addition to the curriculum, they were taught
for ten minutes in a supplemental program. This program included multisensory additions that
included finger tapping to sound out each letter of a word, letter formation onto carpet squares,
and using magnetic letters to manipulate the words by changing beginning, middle, and ending
sounds. This study indicated that word knowledge increased when the reading intervention
included multisensory components. I observed this increase in sight word knowledge in my own
research study by implementing multisensory additions to the student participants learning. The
multisensory centers used during this study allowed student participants to move and not become
bored or antsy during the lengthy reading time. Students truly became more independent with
their reading skills as the centers appeared more exciting to them.

My studys results indicated in the Fry sight word assessment and the FAST progress
monitoring that students not only needed movement added to their independent reading, but
these multisensory reading centers also added daily repetition of previously learned words and
new words for the week. Once students mastered a sight word list, they were given a new list.
Students would continue to practice all lists even once they were mastered. With this daily
practice of sight words, it helped me as a teacher to stay accountable for assigning students new
words right when they mastered the old sight words. Previously in my classroom I would wait a
week or two until I assigned new words, but with the multisensory sight word centers, the
learning was happening at a more rapid speed because of the daily repetition. I also believe that
students were learning in a different way than they have before. Instead of learning sight words
a more traditional way with flashcards, the students were building sight words with clay, jumping
on the sight words at the sight word hopscotch center, and gazing for sight words during the star
sight word center. All of the sight word multisensory centers were a new way of learning that I
feel my students really enjoyed because they did not even realize that they were actually
learning. These centers may have seemed more like an activity than actual learning and
practicing of skills. Overall, according to my results, multisensory centers made an impact on all
student participants sight word recognition.
The purpose of the second sub-question was to determine how multisensory reading
centers affect student word decoding skills. Decoding was assessed before implementing
multisensory centers by using decoding word flip books that were at the students level. Data
were documented on a decoding assessment sheet. The participants scores were determined by
counting how many words were read correctly out of how many total words and creating the
percentage score. Additionally, running records were taken during guided reading and was
looked at to gather word accuracy percentages.
After analyzing the student participants word decoding data, it was determined that all
students word decoding skills increased from September to December with the word decoding
assessment. All students grew 50% or more on the percent of words decoded correctly. The
results of the decoding skills surprised me especially since last year these students did not seem
to grow this quickly with their reading skills. I felt as though this change in my classroom had
affected these students greatly by building their independence and reading skills.
In addition to the word decoding assessment, I analyzed running records pre and post
intervention. It was determined that all students running record scores increased during the
intervention. According to the school districts standards, each student began reading at a
frustration level with a word accuracy rate below 89%. When assessing student participants with
running records, I observed students not attempting to decode words that were unknown. Instead,
student participants would wait for me to tell them the word. By the end of the implementation of
the intervention, according to the district reading standards, all students were reading at an
independent level with 95% word accuracy or higher. Toward the end of the intervention, while
assessing the student participants with a running record, students were using independent
strategies to figure out unknown words instead of waiting for me to tell them the word. The
independence that I saw from this participant group had grown tremendously from before the
implementation of multisensory reading centers.
Dilorenzo, Rody, Bucholz, and Brady (2011) researched the effects of how teaching
letter-sound connections with picture mnemonics on early decoding. Results showed that using
hands-on manipulatives were strongly connected to childrens decoding and reading skills, even
students who received special education services. The student participants in my study received
specially designed instruction in the special education setting. At times, it can be difficult to find
ways to best support these students so that they are closing the achievement gap between them
and their peers. The manipulation of objects and letters at the centers kept the students moving
and active during the entire special education reading time. The amount of time that the students
were working on reading and word skills increased tremendously from prior to the intervention.
I believe that the increased amount of time manipulating words and the repeated practice could
have made an impact on the student participants increase in decoding skills during the
intervention.
Conclusion
The results of this study demonstrated that multi-sensory reading centers positively
influenced student engagement, sight word recognition, and word decoding skills. The set-up of
these multi-sensory reading centers and continuously switching out when needed was considered
important because students attention and learning differences were accommodated for.
Conclusion and Future Implications
I began this action research study hoping to learn how I could improve my students
engagement during independent reading time so that they were practicing reading skills more
often. I tried to boost student engagement in hopes that my students could potentially learn and
retain more sight words, and hone their decoding skills. The overall goal was to decrease the gap
between the student participants and their peers. What I learned in my action research study both
reinforced what I had felt that these students needed and what I must do in my future teaching to
continue to meet the students needs.

Importance of the Study
As I began this action research study, I used sensory reading centers hoping to effect
student engagement, decoding, and sight word recognition. The results of my study helped to
clarify what Saez, Folsom, Otaiba, and Schatchneider (2012) meant when they stated, 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
(p. 429). When I began this research study, I felt overwhelmed by the amount of work it was
going to be to restructure my classroom by adding multisensory reading centers. I quickly
learned that this extra time and research I put into my classroom to structure the centers made a
tremendous impact on my students engagement during independent reading time, as well as
their word decoding skills and sight words. Introducing multisensory centers into my classroom,
for students who had a difficult time attending, created opportunities for student independence,
movement, and goal setting. All students, especially those with ADHD, need exercise; it assists
them with concentration and provides an outlet for healthy impulse discharge, helping to control
impulsivity (Mulrine, Prater, & Jenkins, 2008, p. 16). As a result of using multisensory centers,
I felt confident that I found a more successful way to structure my classroom and teach essential
reading skills during independent reading time. With this change in my classroom, my students
felt successful with their sight word and decoding skills while it fostered student independence.
This action research study was important to me since I was able to share the success and effects
that it had on my students reading skills with colleges within my building and within my school
district.
Lessons Learned
For this action research study, numerous limitations may have affected the results of the
study. The participants of this study were chose due to convenience and not by random sample.
Students attendance and the lack of taking medication or changing medication were
unpredictable which may have affected their growth. When students were either absent or not
taking their medication, they would have missed or not been able to participate in the
multisensory centers for that day. This could have affected their engagement and word reading
skills.
Another limitation was that this was my first time carrying out an action research study in
my classroom, and I was uncertain of how to prepare for the process of an action research study.
However, this resulted in me learning the action research process as well as how to implement
my research. The lessons that I learned throughout this research process will make an impact on
my future teaching. since this implementation of multisensory centers had such a high impact on
my students engagement and learning, I will continue to conduct this teaching method with
future student groups. I learned that multisensory reading centers should be continuously
changed for student success. Keeping the centers frequently changed during my study kept
students engaged and excited. In the future, I will plan to rotate the centers more often.
Another learning point also came to me during the study. There are more ways than
explicitly teaching independence to increase student engagement and independence. I was
always concerned that these students were unable to be independent, but by structuring my
classroom in a new way and adding multisensory learning these things fostered student
independence.
After completing this action research study, I found that the FAST progress monitoring
assessment was not useful as a data source to support my research question. This assessment did
not give an accurate portrayal of my students reading growth because each assessment
progressed differently in levels of difficulty. One of the last take aways from this study that I
would do differently is the student survey. I did not have student answer the questions accurately
due to them not fully understanding the question. I believe that students also were responding
based on how I would react to their answers as I was administering the survey.
Future Implications
As I expect my students to continue and grow with their reading skills, my efforts to
improve my instruction as a teacher will not end with this action research study. I plan to
continue working with this group of students by implementing new multisensory centers in
hopes to see their reading skills increase until the end of the school year. At the end of the year, I
will compare students reading skills to my post intervention data so that I am able to analyze
further the effects of multisensory reading centers.
I also hope to impact students and teachers beyond my own classroom. Recently, I had
the opportunity to share the multisensory reading centers that I had created with the districts
special education department during a professional development day. The teachers were able to
make and take the centers and use in their own classrooms. In my own school, my principal was
very interested in how multisensory centers affected my students during their special education
reading time. She decided to come and observe during my reading time with this group. After
being very impressed with the engagement and the skills that these students were learning, she
shared these centers with other teachers throughout the building.

Most importantly, I believe that this action research study has made the largest impact on
me as a teacher. My teaching has grown tremendously since the beginning of this study and by
conducting this study. I have learned to open the doors to new ideas. This study has helped me to
become a more confident teacher and has helped me to see the impact that I have on my students.
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.
Appendix A
Student Engagement Data Collection

Appendix B
Student Survey
How do you feel about

reading time in my
reading words that you do not
reading sight words?
practicing reading on your
How do you feel at reading
Appendix C
FRY Sight Word Assessment and Data Sheet

Appendix D
Decoding Assessment Data Sheet

Appendix E
Running Record Data Sheet


Murch Final Paper 4-20-17

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Murch Final Paper 4-20-17

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Running head: MULTISENSORY CENTERS IN A SPECIAL EDUCATION CLASSROOM

THE EFFECTS OF MULTISENSORY CENTERS ON STUDENT ENGAGEMENT, SIGHT

Catherine G. Bell-Robertson, Ph.D.

Susan Hughes, Ed. D.

was beneficial to student learning and will be implemented in the future.

Decoding in a Special Education Classroom

the room while I am teaching a lesson?

off task, and they all learned differently.

intense instruction that meets the Iowa Core Standards.

Purpose of the Research

Research Questions and Sub-Questions

effects of implementing multi-sensory reading centers on student engagement of 2nd grade

who receive special education services.

reading skills such as decoding and sight word recognition.

Multisensory Reading Centers Impact on Student Engagement

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

and writing (Imeraj et al., 2013).

performance when the intervention was in place.

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

level interaction between individualizing instruction and attention-memory was positively

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

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

engagement more than teacher supervision.

Multisensory Impact on Sight Word Recognition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

compared to baseline data.

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

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

Multisensory Impact on Decoding Skills

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

processing the material (p. 24).

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

Magnan, 2014, p. 112).

segmenting, and decoding words compared to the comparison group.

traditional way of teaching decoding.

centers effect student engagement and reading skills.

multisensory reading centers on student on-task/off-task behaviors. I also investigated the

were student engagement, sight word recognition, and decoding skills.

routines and attention.

served around 600 students.

convenience and received specially designed instruction in the area of reading.

comparison of student engagement before multisensory centers and after implementing

students current decoding skills.

the special education setting.

able to triangulate data to look for commonalities and themes.

implementing multi-sensory reading centers on sight word recognition, decoding, and

Multisensory Reading Centers Impact on Student Engagement

surveys are represented in Figures 1, 2, 3 and 4.

Student One On and Off Task Behavior

Student Two On and Off Task Behavior

Student Three On and Off Task Behavior

Confident Uncertain Not Confident

I just need to find 2 more words!

Multisensory Impact on Sight Word Recognition

Sight Word Recognition