Structured multisensory techniques in reading and learning patterns - some considerations

This study investigates whether a structured multisensory programme of early literacy’ (’M-POW’R - Multisensory Programme of Writing and Reading (Muscat, unpublished early literacy programme) implemented in a Maltese private school is perceived by teachers using it as an inclusive strategy, as respectful of the learning modalities molding and shaping each learner’s path through learning. This study makes use of the interactive learning model proposed by Johnston (1994, 1996, 2006, 2007 and 2009) and explores the extent this multisensory early literacy programme compliments the four learning patterns proposed in Johnston’s theory. This research embraces and is underpinned by a number of philosophies and frameworks, namely the social model approach to disability and beyond (Barnes & Mercer, 1997; Barton & Oliver; 1997; Oliver, 1992; 1996), the Adams’ Model of Reading (1990), Piagetian genetic epistemology (Schwebel & Raph, 1973) , Vygotskian concept of scaffolding, (Steffe & Gale, 1995; Ormrod, 2007) and the concept of Universal Design Learning and Inclusive strategies (Falzon, 2010; Hegarty, 1993; Mengon & Hart, 1991; Pugach 1995; Tod, 1999; Rose & Meyer 2002; Turnbull, Turnbull & Wehmeyer, 2010). The data were collected through a questionnaire given to all nine teachers working with the Early Years of the school. Teachers unanimously perceived the multisensory programme as respectful of the four learning patterns to each of the 16 themes in the questionnaire. In line with the aims and ethos of the ’M-POW’R programme, the more predominant learning patterns were Technical and Sequential, followed by Confluence and Precision respectively. Statistical differences were only found in four themes. The confidence interval in this study is very high and therefore inference to the actual mean can be made. This study confirms that the structured multisensory techniques developed and designed by Muscat are inclusive strategies and respectful of the learners’ individual learning preference.