Content uploaded by Kristen Morgan
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Kristen Morgan on Sep 04, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Multisensory
Teaching: Crossing
Into a New Discipline
Kristen Morgan
The University of Southern
Mississippi
Abstract
Effective communication is one characteristic of
an effective teacher. Communication can engage
the learner through a single sensory (i.e., auditory)
or through multiple sensory (i.e., auditory, visual, and
kinesthetic). Teaching with a multisensory approach
provides additional pathways for the learner to
receive information. Multisensory teaching is practiced
with children with speech and language disorders in
language education although this article will describe
how it could be incorporated in physical education.
While there is limited research in the physical education
setting, enhanced communication using multisensory
teaching provides opportunities for learning in students
with and without speech and language disorders.
Keywords: Adapted physical education, association
method, communication, multisensory, orton-gilling-
ham, physical education
To be an eective teacher is to be an eective commu-
nicator. Communication is crucial to support student learn-
ing since it occurs each time a student receives information
(Rink, 1994; Silverman, 1994). Teachers communicate by
transmitting the incoming sensory information detected by
each student (Miller & Lane, 2000). Teachers may utilize
one or more sensory modalities to transmit information. In
single sensory teaching, information is verbalized and stu-
dents receive information through auditory sensory recep-
tors. In multisensory teaching, students receive information
and learn by establishing associations between auditory, vi-
sual, and kinesthetic senses. Teaching with a multisensory
approach is proposed since it strengthens neural pathways
in the brain for a more automatic retrieval of information
(Kelly & Phillips, 2016).
The foundation of sensory teaching is grounded in motor
learning theories explaining learning (Adams, 1971; Schmidt,
1975). A motor learning information-processing model por-
trays three phases to describe learning: sensory input, in-
formation processing, and motor response (Schmidt & Lee,
2011). Initially, the student hears the directions; secondly,
the student processes what was heard; third and lastly, the
student attempts to execute the skill. The rst of the three
stages, sensory input, is the most crucial stage, since it is the
foundation of the learning process and it is when active cog-
nition begins. During the sensory input stage students de-
code information (Rink & Hall, 2008) while already knowing
more about the movement than able to physically reproduce
(Weiss, Ebbeck, & Weise-Bjornstal, 1993). This initial stage
of learning (Schmidt & Lee, 2011) is strengthened by com-
municating through a multisensory approach by introducing
the information through many sensory stimuli.
Multisensory communication is practiced as a teaching
method in language education for children with speech and
language disorders. While multisensory teaching has not
been explored in depth in other disciplines, multisensory
teaching could be utilized into a physical education setting
to enhance communication. The purpose of this article is to
describe multisensory teaching and provide insights on how
it could t into physical education for eective communica-
tion.
History of Multisensory Language
Education
Multisensory teaching methods were designed to enable
children with speech and hearing disabilities to read, write,
and orally communicate (Gillingham & Stillman, 1997; Kot-
ler, 2018; McGinnis, 1939). Multisensory teaching focuses
on establishing a close association or link between what the
student sees in print and in the demonstration (visual), what
the student hears in the directions (auditory), and what the
student feels when producing the skill and when produc-
ing the sounds of the words (kinesthetic) (Gillingham &
Stillman, 1997). The Language Triangle (see Figure 1), also
known as multisensory teaching, portrays the three associ-
ations (i.e., visual, auditory, kinesthetic) necessary to build
students’ language.
Visual
Auditory Kinesthetic
A-K
A-V
V-K
Language Triangle
Figure 1. The Language Triangle from “The Gillingham Manual,”
by A. Gillingham and B.W. Stillman, 1997, p. 30. Cambridge, MA.
Educators Publishing Service.
46 PALAESTRA | 2019 | Vol. 33, No. 1
The two multisensory teaching practices presented in
this article are the Association Method (AM) and the Orton-
Gillingham (OG) approach. The AM was created in the mid-
1920s and is the rst of many multisensory teaching methods
that can be seen in classrooms today. Mildred Agatha
McGinnis, a teacher of the speech and hearing impaired,
created the AM. McGinnis crafted her own teaching methods
by systematically altering her instruction until her students
reached successful language skills (DuBard & Martin, 2000).
The more well-known multisensory methodology
is the OG approach created by Dr. Samuel T. Orton, a
neuropathologist, and his colleagues. Orton determined that
language disorders were caused by a brain defect and the
treatment for this brain defect should be educational with
early directional training along with kinesthetic awareness
(Gillingham & Stillman, 1997; Henry, 1998). Orton’s therapy
practices evolved into a teaching practice as progressive
research associates, Anna Gillingham and Bessie W.
Stillman, created a teaching manual. The teaching practice
combined Orton’s therapy with the sounds (phonemes),
meanings (morphemes), and spelling rules by putting hands,
eyes, ears, and voices together in a conscious organization
for learning (Henry, 1998). In 1936, the OG approach was
created in its rst, of eight editions (Gillingham & Stillman,
1997). The specic steps utilized in both the AM and OG
approach are described in Figure 2.
Multisensory Teaching Evidence in
Children with Speech and Language
Disorders
Multisensory teaching methods are prevalent in elemen-
tary language education for students with speech and lan-
guage disorders (see Figure 3). Multisensory methods are
primarily practiced among children with dyslexia, aecting
10-15% of all people and 80% of those with a disability (Dys-
lexia International, 2014), and other speech and language
disabilities. Multisensory teaching has shown to improve
oral and written language skills in students with dyslexia
(Henry, 1998; Koifman, 2017; Lim & Oei, 2015; Oakland,
Black, Stanford, Nussbaum, & Balise, 1998), autism spec-
trum disorder (Iarocci & McDonald, 2006), low socioeco-
nomic households and ethnic diversity (Joshi, Dahlgren, &
Boulware-Gooden, 2002; Magpuri-Lavell, Paige, Williams,
Akins, & Cameron, 2014), English as a second language
(Schneider & Kulmhofer, 2016; Sparks & Miller, 2000),
and those who struggle to read (Geiss, Rivers, Kennedy, &
Lombardino, 2012; Marsh, 2018) in remedial and non-re-
medial classes (Jasmine & Connolly, 2015; Ritchey & Goeke,
2006; Rogers, 1999; Vickery, Reynolds, & Cochran, 1987).
Improvements in language skills were found in a variety of
learners since multisensory teaching creates a more natural
learning environment (Shams & Seitz, 2008) along with stu-
dent enjoyment (Jasmine & Connolly, 2015).
Although multisensory teaching is primarily applied in
language education, it has also been eective in math edu-
cation (Rains, Kelly, & Durham, 2008; Thornton, Jones, &
Toohey, 1983). Thornton et al. (1983) examined if multisen-
sory teaching was appropriate to teach addition to students
in remedial primary school. The study acknowledged their
research design was founded on theories of special educa-
tion reading programs. The multisensory approach applied
in the study yielded signicantly higher addition scores on
the post-test and retention test. The rise in scores supports
using multisensory methods in other academic disciplines
besides language education.
Steps AM
OG
Approach
Association of symbol with sound X X
Association of symbol with letter name X
Association of symbol with kinesthetic
feedback from production of sound
X X
Precise articulation for production of sound
from written stimulus
X X
Establishment of recall of written form X X
Association of written form with spoken
sound
X X
Association of written form with spoken
letter name
X
Copying written form correctly X X
Writing letter correctly from dictation of
letter name
X
Saying sound after hearing name of letter X
Saying letter after hearing sound X
Writing symbol following dictation of sound X X
Association of spoken form of linguistic
content with its written form
X
Recognition of linguistic unit from auditory
stimulus only
X
DuBard & Martin, 2000; Gillingham & Stillman, 1997; McGinnis, 1939)
Figure 2. Comparing the Association Method and Orton-
Gillingham Approach
Apraxia/ articulations disorders
Aphasia
Autism spectrum disorder
Auditory processing disorders
Dyslexia
Stroke
Traumatic brain injury
Attention decit disorder with and without hyperactivity
Cerebral palsy
Deaf and hearing disordered
English as a second language (ESL)
Learning and reading disabilities
(DuBard & Martin, 2000; DuBard School; International Dyslexia
Association, 2014; Kotler, 2018)
Figure 3. Populations Beneting from Multisensory Teaching
Vol. 33, No. 1 | 2019 | PALAESTRA 47
Multisensory Techniques in
Physical Education
Multisensory teaching incorporates visual, auditory, tac-
tile, and kinesthetic stimuli to communicate with children
with language disorders. While there is limited research in
a physical education (PE) setting integrating multisensory
teaching, there has been evidence of multisensory type tech-
niques. A study examining eective communication strate-
gies found that teachers and coaches of the deaf and hearing
impaired used a variety of techniques (Kurková & Scheetz,
2016). These included teacher and peer modeling, role-play-
ing, pictures, visual aids, white boards, technology, videos,
keeping it simple, and repetition until the motor skills have
been learned. This array of communication strategies is us-
ing multisensory teaching including many visual, tactile,
and kinesthetic stimuli to reach students and athletes with
hearing disorders.
Another form of evidence for multisensory type tech-
niques in PE is research on student learning under varying
instructional conditions. Flavell, Beach, and Chinsky (1966)
found verbal rehearsal by students to be a function of age
and task diculty while questioning the role of language
in cognitive activities. Almost 20 years later, Weiss (1983)
tested six instructional conditions to nd the eect of age,
modeling, and verbal self-directions within children 4-5 and
7-8 years old. The younger children learned more from the
combination of verbal instructions, verbal self-directions,
and a visual. McCullagh, Stiehl, and Weiss (1990) and Weiss,
Ebbeck, and Rose (1992) later found similar age dierences
where younger children further beneted from oral recall.
However, the studies mentioned above only examined se-
quential tasks, so Kwak (1993) examined the lacrosse throw,
a discrete skill. Within ve experimental conditions, the
highest student performance, both accuracy and using the
appropriate movement, resulted in the condition with the
highest sensory stimuli (Kwak, 1993). This demonstrated
higher student achievement with a demonstration, verbal
explanations with cues, and verbal rehearsal. The research
supports combining verbal, visual, and oral recall/kines-
thetic (i.e., multisensory) in teaching PE. Although none of
the above studies claimed their practices were multisenso-
ry, each study tested single sensory verses multiple sensory
stimuli when teaching motor skills.
Multisensory Communication in
Physical Education
Multisensory teaching provides the opportunity for
several means of communication to teach motor skills.
According to Silverman (1994), communication is evident
during three times in PE: (a) before practice in the task
presentation, (b) during practice as feedback, (c) and after
practice as a review. During the task presentation, teachers
communicate the meaning, importance, organization, and
goal of the assignment (Rink, 1994). Task presentations could
incorporate one sensory stimulus (i.e., verbal) or multiple
sensory stimuli (i.e., verbal, visual, and kinesthetic). Multiple
sensory stimuli have been more eective than single sensory
stimuli in task presentations in an obstacle course (Weiss,
1983), a six-part motor sequence (Weiss et al., 1992; Weiss
& Klint, 1987), a ve-part dance sequence (McCullagh et al.,
1990), and a lacrosse throw (Kwak, 1993). Using a variety
of approaches and sensory stimuli in a task presentation
has been advantageous to learning and communication
(Rink & Hall, 2008; Silverman, 1994). Multiple approaches
and sensory stimuli further indicate the importance of the
information to the learners.
Feedback in a lesson communicates how students are
executing the critical elements of the skill. Feedback holds
students accountable for correctly executing the task (Hall,
Heidorn, & Welch, 2011), keeps students on task (Graham
& Heimerer, 1981), and is correlated with student achieve-
ment (Silverman, 1994). Although verbal feedback has been
most frequently used by teachers, combinations of audito-
ry, visual, and tactile feedback are signicantly correlated to
student achievement (Silverman, Tyson, & Krampitz, 1992).
Structured and purposeful multisensory feedback would
consist of verbal feedback alongside with a visual followed
by prompting the student to execute the feedback and orally
recall the feedback from memory. Allowing sign language or
writing would be an eective modication to oral recall with
students who are nonverbal.
The after-practice review is when teachers communicate
signicant parts of the lesson and provide group feedback.
Although group feedback is more generalizable, each student
engages in a cognitive process to relate the information
(Silverman, 1994). The after-practice review is the nal
chance to communicate the critical elements and conclude
the “take-home” message. During the three opportunities
for communication, the information communicated by the
teacher either propels or puzzles the learner, where the
eectiveness of communication is evident within student
responses. Students who understand will exhibit proper
protocol implying the communication style was eective.
Students who do not understand will be disorderly with
misinterpretations indicating the communication style was
ineective.
Integrating Multisensory Teaching in
Physical Education
Multisensory teaching could be integrated in PE
for eective communication to all students with and
without language disabilities. Since PE is dierent from a
classroom setting (i.e., moving students, larger area, usage
of equipment, and a higher teacher to student ratio) (Rink
& Hall, 2008), the AM and OG approach to learning drills
should not be integrated in PE. The specic learning drills
48 PALAESTRA | 2019 | Vol. 33, No. 1
in the AM and OG multisensory methods are based o the
Language Triangle to build associations between visual,
auditory, and kinesthetic senses to learn language. However,
this Language Triangle could be utilized in PE by establishing
associations between visual, auditory, and kinesthetic senses
to learn motor skills. To establish a multisensory association
among motor skills, the underlying principles of the AM,
could be integrated into PE. Kotler (2018) and DuBard and
Martin (2000) listed 10 underlying principles of the AM:
• Receptive work follows expressive
• Teach one small element at a time
• Encourage success
• Build on previously mastered material
• Written form accompanies all that is taught
• Modications of temporal rate
• All spoken items are associated with a visual symbol
• Complete recall of new material
• Structure repetition and sameness
• With new material, children say, read, lip-read, lis-
ten, and write
These 10 underlying principles are the foundation of a
multisensory curriculum focusing on building links between
visual, auditory, and kinesthetic senses (i.e., the Language
Triangle). In a PE curriculum, teachers could integrate read-
ing by having all students read out loud together the critical
elements of the skill before starting the skill practice. Visuals
such as pictures, photographs, and demonstrations (using
same cues) could be shown before the skill practice. Oral
recall could be integrated by asking students to repeat the
critical elements (exact same as read) from memory prior
to executing the skill for an informal assessment. Writing
could be integrated by allowing students to write the critical
elements (exact same as read) of each mastered competen-
cy in their PE journal. Speaking slower could also be help-
ful to assure students are attaining the information. Other
principles of multisensory teaching such as progression, en-
couragement, feedback, and building on prior skills should
already be implemented in PE. For a practical example on
how to integrate these principles, a case study is provided.
Case Study
Justin Lee is a fourth grade student diagnosed with dys-
lexia and a mild hearing disorder. Although Justin wears
hearing aids to assist his hearing, Justin is in general PE
along with 24 of his peers. Mrs. Connor, the physical educa-
tor, notices Justin is constantly confused about how to per-
form the skills properly and the goal of the activity. Justin
frequently asks questions Mrs. Connor just reviewed ver-
bally with the whole class like, “How do I hold the racket
again?,” “Are we keeping individual or team points?” Mrs.
Connor initially assumed Justin was not paying attention
and there was a behavior concern. However, Mrs. Connor
noticed this behavior was only evident in PE, and it was each
time a new stimulus was introduced. Mrs. Connor knew
there must be a communication issue so she began to speak
louder, more slowly, and moved Justin to the front of the
class. Since these tactics did not help in Justin’s case, Mrs.
Connor decided to consult with Mr. Werts, a colleague in
adapted PE, for advice.
Mr. Werts suggested using multisensory teaching, an ap-
proach Mrs. Connor had never heard of before. Mr. Werts
provided strategies to follow when working with students
with speech and language disorders and encouraged build-
ing close associations between what the student sees, hears,
and does. Mrs. Connor began to integrate multisensory
teaching by using the strategies provided by Mr. Werts. The
strategies included writing the cues, directions, and other
key points on the board for students to read, providing a
teacher or peer demonstration, providing a picture of some-
one else performing the skill, having students orally recall
key points before performing the task, building on previous-
ly mastered skills, encouraging success, teaching one small
step at a time, speaking more slowly, and having students
write mastered competencies. Mrs. Connor soon started to
notice that Justin understood the directions, was more on-
task, and asked fewer questions after he was able to hear the
cues, read the cues out loud, and see additional images of
correct execution of the cues. As Justin would recall the cues
from memory prior to performing them, Mrs. Connor was
able to assess his understanding on how to execute the skill.
Upon correct execution of the skill, Justin was able to write
the skill with cues in his PE journal to demonstrate mastery.
A sample lesson plan integrating multisensory methods is
provided (see Figure 4).
Conclusion
McGinnis (1939) saw potential in children with speech
and hearing disorders that was not conveyed in the gener-
al education class. PE teachers see this same potential but
perhaps do not know how to eectively help students with
speech and language disorders. McGinnis brought out her
children’s potential by adapting educational methods. In PE,
Vol. 33, No. 1 | 2019 | PALAESTRA 49
adapting more commonly occurs by adapting the equipment
or task while multisensory teaching is centered on adapting
communication techniques. Teachers must adapt to eec-
tively communicate to students and to meet professional
duties. Providing communication access is a component un-
der section 504 and Title II of the American with Disabilities
Act (ADA). The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA) mandates free and appropriate public education to
children with disabilities. In fact, the second highest per-
centage of students receiving special education services un-
der the IDEA are those with speech or language disorders
(U.S. Department of Education, 2017). Together, the ADA
and IDEA require teachers to adapt and modify communi-
cation and teaching strategies to meet the unique needs of
all learners.
Inappropriate communication includes only verbal in-
structions, which is unsupportive of students with hearing
and language disabilities (Kurková & Scheetz, 2016). If the
communication of “how” and “what” of the lesson are not
eectively conveyed, students are left guessing at the rules
and objective of the activity and how to execute the skill.
This leads to what teachers believe is o-task behavior, and
students are punished for not listening or per-
ceived as lower skilled for not performing the
task correctly. In reality, these students may
not have fully understood the directions and
could have adequately completed the task if
the teacher had given directions using multi-
ple sensory stimuli.
Although there has not been one method of
teaching that increases all student learning in
PE (Graham & Heimerer, 1981; Rink, 2001) or
in language education (Rogers, 1999; Schla-
gal, 2002), modifying communication may al-
low students to more thoroughly understand
the material. Communication is not a “one-
size-ts-all” tactic. Communication depends
on the content, age group, the students, and
other situational variables in the learning
environment (Graham & Heimerer, 1981;
Rink, 1994). Having students with speech
and language disorders would create the ideal
situation to incorporate multisensory teach-
ing. Learners with speech and language dis-
orders are in both general and adapted PE,
so all PE teachers could potentially benet
from multisensory teaching. However, since
multisensory teaching is a simple but struc-
tured-repetitive method, it is good teaching
for all students with and without speech and
language disorders.
Literature is limited in PE or in teaching a
motor skill under a multisensory technique.
It is recommended that practitioners
incorporate more sensory teaching with
students with and without speech and
language disorders. Further research is
needed in the classroom and PE setting
in helping students with and without
communication disorders. Multisensory
communication enhances teaching providing
additional avenues to reach children who
may not understand mere verbal or visual
directions. Children with speech and hearing
disorders do not lack intelligence, they just
need modications in instruction to gather
the information; (DuBard & Martin, 2000;
Henry, 1998; McGinnis, 1939; Orton, 1963)
particularly, modifying communication
between the teacher and student using
multiple sensory stimuli.
Grade-Level
Outcomes
S1. E14. 4a
Lesson Objectives
Throws overhand using a mature pattern in non-dynamic environments.
The learner
will:
• Hear
• Read
• See
• Say
• Do
• Write
Equipment and Materials
• Large white/chalk board and a writing utensil
• 10 rubber balls, 10 whie balls, 10 indoor softballs, 10 foam balls
• 8 large wall targets with 4 starting lines taped on the ground
• 25 student journals & 25 pens
Introduction
Student will hear: Today we are working on throwing to a target from a selected distance.
By the end of the lesson you will be able to throw with proper form. Proper throwing form
is when you start standing sideways while holding your arm back. Then you step with your
opposite foot, rotate your body, and follow through”. Now I have this written on the board,
let’s read it together (teacher will point and the class will read).
Student will read “today we are throwing by standing sideways, holding arm back,
stepping with my opposite foot, rotating my body, and following through”.
Student will say “today we are throwing by standing sideways, holding arm back, stepping
with my opposite foot, rotating my body, and following through”.
Students will see a demonstration by a peer as directed by the teacher as well as a picture
of a similar aged child performing an overhand throw executing the critical elements.
Instructional
Task
Practice Task Student
Choices/
Dierentiation
What to Look For
Overhand
throw to large
target on the
wall.
Students will be
split into groups of
3-4 per target.
Each student takes
turns throwing to
the wall target one
student at a time.
The distance they
start from (5’, 10’,
15’, 20’).
The ball they
throw with
(rubber, whie,
indoor softball,
foam ball).
• Hips and spine are side to
target in preparation for
throwing
• Arm back and extended, elbow
at shoulder height or slightly
above in preparation for action
• Step with opposite foot
• Hip and spine rotate as
throwing
• Follow through towards target
Formal and Informal Assessments
• During lesson teacher will monitor task, critical elements, and performance of each
student while giving multisensory feedback. Student should recall the feedback from the
teacher. A demonstration or production of students’ body executing the feedback may be
needed for those needing extra help.
• Post lesson teacher will allow students to write critical elements in their journal once
teacher has seen the student execute the throwing skill and heard the student say correct
execution of the throwing skill.
Closure
• Teacher will ask the students, “how should we throw with proper form?
• Teacher will call on one student with their hands raised for the answer. After the correct
answer is discussed each student will write the answer in their own PE journal.
• Student will write “I stand sideways, hold arm back, step with my opposite foot, rotate
my body, and follow through when I throw” in their PE journal.
• Teacher will collect the journals and place them in the class labeled basket as students line
up to leave.
Lesson plan format coming from Doan, R., MacDonald, L., & Chepko, S. (Eds.), (2017)
Figure 3. Lesson Plan for Multisensory Teaching
50 PALAESTRA | 2019 | Vol. 33, No. 1
References
Adams, J. A. (1971). A closed-loop theory of motor learning. Journal of Mo-
tor Behavior, 1971, 3, 111–150.
Doan, R., MacDonald, L., & Chepko, S. (Eds.). (2017). Planning lessons for
middle school physical education: Meeting the national standards and
grade-level outcomes. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
DuBard, E., & Martin, M. K. (2000). Teaching language-decient children:
Theory and application of the association method for multisensory
teaching. Cambridge, MA. Educators Publishing Service.
Dyslexia International. (2014). Better training, better teaching. [Review
of Duke University]. Retrieved from https://www.dyslexia-internation-
al.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/04/DI-Duke-Report-final-4-29-14.
pdf
Flavell, J. H., Beach, D. R., & Chinsky, J. M. (1966). Verbal rehearsal in a
memory task as a function of age. Child Development, 37(2), 283–299.
Geiss, S., Rivers, K. O., Kennedy, K. S., & Lombardino, L. J. (2012). Eects
of multisensory phonics-based training on the word recognition and
spelling skills of adolescents with reading disabilities. International
Journal of Special Education, 27(1), 60–73.
Gillingham, A., & Stillman, B. W. (1997). The Gillingham manual. Cam-
bridge, MA: Educators Publishing Service.
Graham, G., & Heimerer, E. (1981). Research on teacher eectiveness: A
summary with implications for teaching. Quest (00336297), 33(1),
14–25.
Hall, T. J., Heidorn, B., & Welch, M. (2011). A description of preservice
teachers’ task presentation skills. Physical Educator, 68(4), 188.
Henry, M. K. (1998). Structured, sequential, multisensory teaching: The
Orton legacy. Annals of Dyslexia, 48(1), 1–26.
Iarocci, G., & McDonald, J. (2006). Sensory integration and the perceptual
experience of persons with autism. Journal of Autism and Develop-
mental Disorders, 36(1), 77–90.
Jasmine, J., & Connolly, D. M. (2015). The use of multisensory approaches
during center time, through visual, auditory, and kinesthetic-tactile ac-
tivities, to enhance spelling accuracy of second grade students. Journal
of Education and Social Policy, 2(1), 12–19.
Joshi, R. M., Dahlgren, M., & Boulware-Gooden, R. (2002). Teaching
reading in an inner-city school through a multisensory teaching ap-
proach. Annals of Dyslexia, 52(1), 229–242.
Kelly, K., & Phillips, S. (2016). Teaching literacy to learners with dyslexia:
A multi-sensory approach. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
Koifman, J. (2017). Teaching students with specic education needs. Inter-
national Journal of Innovation and Research in Education Sciences,
4(3), 317–320.
Kotler, M. (2018). What is the association method? [web log post]. Re-
trieved from https:// www.apraxia-kids.org/library/what-is-the-asso-
ciation-method/
Kurková, P., & Scheetz, N. A. (2016). Communication strategies used by
physical education teachers and coaches in residential schools for the
deaf in the U.S. Acta Facultatis Educationis Physicae Universitatis
Comenianae, 56(1), 1–15.
Kwak, E. C. (1993). The initial eects of various task presentation condi-
tions on students’ performance of the lacrosse throw (Doctoral Disser-
tation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertation Publishing.
Lim, L., & Oei, A. C. (2015). Reading and spelling gains following one year
of Orton Gillingham intervention in Singaporean students with dyslex-
ia. British Journal of Special Education, 42(4), 374–389.
National Standards for K-12 Physical Education. (2013).
SHAPE America–Society of Health and Physical Educators,
1900 Association Drive, Reston, VA 20191, www.shapeamerica.org. All
rights reserved.
Magpuri-Lavell, T., Paige, D., Williams, R., Akins, K., & Cameron, M.
(2014). The eects of a summer reading programs using simultaneous
multisensory instruction of language arts on reading prociency. Read-
ing Improvement, 51(4), 361–372.
Marsh, C. (2018). ABC: It’s as easy as 1, 2, 3–The importance of a multisen-
sory approach in phonological awareness instruction. Unpublished Cer-
ticate of Advanced Study Thesis, Sacred Heart University, Faireld,
CT. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/lit/7/
McCullagh, P., Stiehl, J., & Weiss, M. R. (1990). Developmental modeling
eects on the quantitative and qualitative aspects of motor perfor-
mance. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 61(4), 344–350.
McGinnis, M. A. (1939). The association method for diagnosis and treat-
ment of congenital aphasia (Independent Studies and Capstones). Re-
trieved from Washington University School of Medicine.
Miller, L. J., & Lane, S. J. (2000, March). Toward a consensus in terminolo-
gy in sensory integration theory and practice: Part 1: Taxonomy of neu-
rophysiological processes. Sensory Integration Special Interest Section
Quarterly, 23, 1–4.
Oakland, T., Black, J. L., Stanford, G., Nussbaum, N. L., & Balise, R. R.
(1998). An evaluation of the dyslexia training program: A multisen-
sory method for promoting reading in students with reading disabili-
ties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(2), 140–147.
Orton, S. T. (1963). Specic reading disability: Strephosymbolia. Annals of
Dyslexia, 13(1), 9–17.
Rains, J. R., Kelly, C. A., & Durham, R. L. (2008). The evolution of the
importance of multi-sensory teaching techniques in elementary math-
ematics: Theory and practice. Journal of Theory & Practice in Educa-
tion, 4(2), 239–252.
Rink, J. E. (1994). Task presentation in pedagogy. Quest, 46(3), 270–280.
Rink, J. E. (2001). Investigating the assumptions of pedagogy. Journal of
Teaching in Physical Education, 20(2), 112–128.
Rink, J. E., & Hall, T. J. (2008). Research on eective teaching in elementa-
ry school PE. The Elementary School Journal, 108(3), 207–218.
Ritchey, K. D., & Goeke, J. L. (2006). Orton-Gillingham and Orton-Gilling-
ham—based reading instruction: A review of the literature. The Journal
of Special Education, 40(3), 171–183.
Rogers, L. K. (1999). Spelling cheerleading. The Reading Teacher, 53(2),
110.
Schlagal, B. (2002). Classroom spelling instruction: History, research, and
practice. Literacy Research and Instruction, 42(1), 44–57.
Schmidt, R. A. (1975). A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. Psy-
chological Review, 82(4), 225–260. doi:10.1037/h0076770
Schmidt, R. A., & Lee, T. D. (2011). Human information processing. Motor
control and learning (pp. 57–95). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Schneider, E., & Kulmhofer, A. (2016). Helping struggling learners of En-
glish as an additional language succeed with interactive multisensory
structured strategies. BELT-Brazilian English Language Teaching
Journal, 7(1), 3–25.
Section 504, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Education Reform,
prepared by the PEER Project–Wrightslaw. Retrieved from http://
www.wrightslaw.com/info/section504.ada.peer.htm
Shams, L., & Seitz, A. R. (2008). Benets of multisensory learning. Trends
in Cognitive Sciences, 12(11), 411–417.
Silverman, S. (1994). Communication and motor skill learning: What we
learn from research in the gymnasium. Quest, 46(3), 345–355.
Silverman, S., Tyson, L., & Krampitz, J. (1992). Teacher feedback and
achievement in physical education: Interaction with student practice.
Teaching & Teacher Education, 8(4), 333–344.
Sparks, R. L., & Miller, K. S. (2000). Teaching a foreign language using mul-
tisensory structured language techniques to at-risk learners: A review.
Dyslexia, 6(2), 124–132.
Thornton, C. A., Jones, G. A., & Toohey, M. A. (1983). A multisensory ap-
proach to thinking strategies for remedial instruction in basic addition
facts. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 14(3), 198–203.
U.S. Department of Education, Oce of Special Education Programs, In-
dividuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) database, retrieved
from https://www2.ed.gov/programs/osepidea/618-data/state-level-
Vickery, K. S., Reynolds, V. A., & Cochran, S. W. (1987). Multisensory teach-
ing approach for reading, spelling, and handwriting, Orton-Gillingham
based curriculum, in a public school setting. Annals of Dyslexia, 37(1),
189–200.
Weiss, M. R. (1983). Modeling and motor performance: A developmental
perspective. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 54(2), 190–
197.
Weiss, M. R., Ebbeck, V., & Rose, D. J. (1992). “Show and tell” in the gym-
nasium revisited: Developmental dierences in modeling and verbal
rehearsal eects on motor skill learning and performance. Research
Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 63(3), 292–301.
Weiss, M. R., Ebbeck, V., & Weise-Bjornstal, D. (1993). Developmental and
psychological factors related to children’s observational learning of
physical skills. Pediatric Exercise Science, 5, 301–317.
Weiss, M. R., & Klint, K. A. (1987). “Show and tell” in the gymnasium: An
investigation of developmental dierences in modeling and verbal re-
hearsal of motor skills. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport,
58(2), 234–241.
Kristen Morgan is a Ph.D. student in the School of
Kinesiology and Nutrition at the University of Southern
Mississippi focusing on physical education.
Vol. 33, No. 1 | 2019 | PALAESTRA 51
