WTS 1 and 2 page 1 of 18

Multi-sensory Phonics Instruction

Ali Hendrickson
Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota
Schools of Graduate and Professional Programs
Portfolio Entry for Wisconsin Teacher Standard 1 & 2
EDUW 691 Professional Skills
Caroline Hickethier, Instructor
July 20, 2017
 WTS 1 and 2 page 2 of 18

Selected Wisconsin Teacher Standard Descriptors

Wisconsin Teacher Standard (WTS) 1: Teachers know the subjects they are teaching.

The teacher understands the central concepts, tools of inquiry, and structures of the

discipline(s) he or she teaches and can create learning experiences that make these aspects of

subject matter meaningful for students.

Knowledge. The teacher understands major concepts, assumptions, debates, processes of

inquiry, and ways of knowing that are central to the discipline(s) s/he teaches.
Dispositions. The teacher is committed to continuous learning and engages in

professional discourse about subject matter knowledge and children’s learning of the discipline.
Performances. The teacher effectively uses multiple representations and explanation of

disciplinary concepts that capture key ideas and links them to students’ prior understandings.

Wisconsin Teaching Standard (WTS) 2: Teachers know how children grow.

The teacher understands how children with broad ranges of ability learn and develop, and

can provide instruction that supports their intellectual, social, and personal development.
Knowledge. The teacher understands how learning occurs-how students construct

knowledge, acquire skills, and develop habits of mind-and knows how to use instructional

strategies that promote student learning for a wide range of student abilities.
Disposition. The teacher appreciates individual variation within each area of

development, shows respect for the diverse talents of all learners, and is committed to help them

develop self-confidence and competence.

 WTS 1 and 2 page 3 of 18

Performances. The teacher accesses students’ thinking and experiences as a basis for

instructional activities by, for example, encouraging discussion, listening to group interaction,

and eliciting samples of student thinking orally and in writing.

Danielson Domains
Domain 1: Planning and Preparation
Component 1a: Demonstrating Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy
Component 1c: Selecting Instructional Goals
Component 1d: Demonstrating Knowledge of Resources
Component 1e: Designing Coherent Instruction
Component 1f: Assessing Student Learning

Domain 3: Instruction
Component 3a: Communicating Clearly and Accurately
Component 3c: Engaging Students in Learning
Component 3d: Providing Feedback to Students
Component 3e: Demonstrating Flexibility and Responsiveness
 WTS 1 and 2 page 4 of 18

Pre-assessments
Self-assessment of Instruction Related to WTS and Targeted Student Learning Objective(s)
For Wisconsin Teaching Standards (WTS) 1 and 2, I wanted to focus on gaining more

control over my guided reading content and implementing a more hands-on learning approach.

The research and insights gained this summer will benefit my future reading instruction and aid

in my success as a first-grade teacher. Based on student achievement and reading levels, I

arrange children into guided reading groups which range in size from 4-6 children and meet daily

for 20 minutes to learn explicit phonics skills and comprehension. Within the 20 minutes, we

accomplish many goals including early phonemic awareness, phonics strategies and decoding,

sight words, leveled reading application, word study, and comprehension. My purpose is to help

foster an understanding of sound and letter relationships and comprehension skills that beginning

readers need to develop proficient literacy skills and to inspire a love of reading in all children.
I chose six WTS 1 and 2 descriptors to guide my learning process. I began by focusing

on the WTS 1 performance descriptor that states a “teacher effectively uses multiple

representations and explanations of disciplinary concepts” to make phonics instruction more

meaningful for students. In this research, I found that the Orton-Gillingham (OG) approach to

reading provides a multi-sensory experience when teaching letters, sounds, and spelling. The

approach was developed by neurologist Dr. Samuel T. Orton and educator Anna Gillingham and

the New York Neurological Institute and has been used successfully around the world. The

Institute for Multi-Sensory Education (IMSE) provides education professionals with effective

tools for teaching the English language and supports the OG multi-sensory literature program.

According to Liuzzo, director of IMSE training (2014),

Instruction begins with simple sound/symbol relationships and progresses logically to

more complex concepts. Each five-part lesson plan is presented to students using their
 WTS 1 and 2 page 5 of 18

visual, auditory, and kinesthetic pathways. This multisensory approach enables learners

to capitalize on their strengths while remediating deficits (p. 1).

OG inspired teachers use sight, hearing, touch and movement techniques to help students

understand language concepts. One of these techniques is called the three-part drill and will aid

in my phonics instruction during guided reading.

This phonics study will help define my role as a literacy teacher and better equip me

when teaching the student learning objectives outlined by the Common Core State Standards

(CCSS). Implementing my plan for improved phonics instruction will support my growth in

WTS 1 knowledge descriptor, a “teacher understands major concepts that are central to the

discipline” and help students reach their highest potential in reading. To ensure I meet the needs

of learners participating in my guided reading groups, it is essential that a “teacher is committed

to continuous learning and engages in professional discourse about subject matter knowledge and

children’s learning of the discipline” and utilizes appropriate literacy resources. I received an

initial OG training in 2015 and continually engage in conversation with my Professional

Learning Community (PLC) about the inclusion of multi-sensory reading opportunities in the

general education setting. The current guided reading curriculum does not have a strong phonics

component and the material is lacking in areas of engagement, creativity, and differentiation of

fine motor activities for children. I will use professional judgement to restructure my ELA block

to incorporate multi-sensory phonics instruction.

Throughout the research process, I considered the WTS 2 knowledge descriptor, which

states that a “teacher understands how learning occurs” when approving the methods of the OG

instructional technique. Our state report card reflects a student learning deficit in reading and

there is a need for new literacy pathways to achieve these objectives. Knowledge of the OG

program will profoundly change the way I teach sound/letter correspondence, phonics

application, and sight words. Giving children a chance to learn using multiple senses and hands-
 WTS 1 and 2 page 6 of 18

on materials relates to the WTS 2 disposition descriptor as follows: “The teacher appreciates

individual variation within each area of development, shows respect for the diverse talents of all

learners” and is what develops strong reading skills. The one-size-fits-all method of teaching

phonics is not appropriate when determining the best programming for young learners and our

growth in reading over the past few years has been stagnant as a result. Allowing children to

explore phonics using their five senses will reach many students’ unique learning styles and

promotes an inclusive, diverse reading curriculum.

Assessment of Student Performance Related to Targeted Student Learning Objective(s)
Currently I teach first-grade reading, writing, math, social studies, and science. In the

2016-17 school year, 10/18 or 55% of general education students reached an Independent 16F

reading score as measured by the Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA). According to the

Phonological Literacy Screening (PALS) state testing outcomes, 10/20 or 50% of special

education and general education students reached a score of 61 or higher in reading proficiency.

Note: For the DRA, I included the students who received general education reading in the

classroom. For PALS, I included all children in my classroom whether receiving reading in a

special education setting or not. Overall, there is a substantial need for improvement in reading.
Upon further research, I found my students were lacking in oral reading fluency in the

areas of rate, accuracy, and decoding. When analyzing running records, I found that student

miscues were often related to their under-developed knowledge of sound/spelling relationships

and patterns within words or their confusion between common sight words. This evidence

relates to their exposure to less robust phonics instruction. Current phonics instruction needs

modification to improve student learning.

Assessment of Learning Environment While Learning Targeted Objective(s)
In first grade, we devote 1 hour and 45 minutes to reading instruction that is split between

1 hour of guided reading in the morning and 45 minutes of writing in the afternoon. During
 WTS 1 and 2 page 7 of 18

guided reading, I meet with one group of 4-6 students at a time for explicit reading instruction

while the others are independently participating in their structured Daily 5 activities.
At Sam Davey, staff follows a specific reading curriculum titled Good Habits, Great

Readers that guides our instruction toward the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). Our ELA

pacing guide is very rigid and allows little room for new ideas, multi-sensory efforts, or project-

based learning. As a district, we are under review of our current Good Habits program and are

soon to undergo a reading curriculum transition upon release of new research findings. Many

skilled teachers are spending the summer looking closer at ELA standards and are researching

new curriculum guides aligned with CCSS. Staff input toward reading instruction is diverse and

people have varying standpoints on literacy education. Phonics instruction is one reading skill

that has been neglected.

Assessment Conclusion and Essential Question to Guide Research
The self-assessment, assessment of student performance, and learning environment

assessment show that I need to devote more time to meaningful phonics instruction. When given

the opportunity to accurately read and write words with correct sound/letter relationships using

multi-sensory instruction, all reading assessment scores will improve and student confidence and

attentiveness will increase. I want to learn more about phonics instructional strategies that will

increase student learning. Finally, my guiding research question that supports my learning is

“How does multi-sensory phonics instruction affect reading achievement in the general education

classroom?”
Research Summary
A child’s early literacy experience greatly impacts reading achievement and success later

in life. Are elementary students missing engaging phonics opportunities and early intervention

that can help them for the rest of their reading career? Phonics mastery is one milestone to

reading that lacks in resources, structure, and overall effectiveness. Systematic phonics

instruction introduces sound/spelling patterns that follow a developmentally appropriate scope

 WTS 1 and 2 page 8 of 18

and sequence. For a child to understand and “break the code” to reading, they must first show

proficiency in phonics and decoding. Early phonics acquisition is the route to making

meaningful connections to text and once mastered, develops strong comprehension skills in

readers. Today, more and more studies warrant the effectiveness of a multi-sensory, systematic

approach to reading instruction.

Developing strong literacy skills begins at birth and is the foundation for all other subject

areas. There are many factors students face that impede learning success and are out of the

control of the classroom and “include family background, lack of motivation on the part of the

learner, and some unspecified cognitive weakness” (Joshi, Dahlgren, & Boulware-Gooden, 2012,

230). To this list we could add the quality of the reading program provided as, “poor instruction

has a more direct impact on reading performance of children in early elementary grades than in

later years” (Joshi, Dahlgren, & Boulware-Gooden, 2012, p. 230). Early intervention and

explicit phonics instruction combined with multisensory experiences help children learn

fundamental literacy concepts needed for later reading success. When children lack automatic

word attack strategies it “can act as a bottleneck and impede comprehension, causing the reader

to spend an inordinate amount of time and energy decoding a word and losing the meaning of the

passage (Joshi, Dahlgren, & Boulware-Gooden, 2012, p. 231).

Brain research confirms that multisensory instruction plays an important role in

developing a child’s ability to succeed in academics at an early age. During lessons, teachers apt

in the multisensory approach learn to target different lobes of the brain, involve many senses, and

engage students in activities that cross the midline of their body. Rushton and Juola-Rushton

(2008) explain that, “the child’s brain receives stimuli from the learning environment via each of

their senses” (p. 89) and teachers “through the utilization of hands-on, differentiated instruction

allow children to be actively responsible for their learning, thus engaging several areas of the
 WTS 1 and 2 page 9 of 18

brain simultaneously” (p. 88). Engaging phonics instruction allows for movement and the

inclusion of sensory experiences including touch, sound, and visual activities. Environments that

promote sensory learning “aid in the development of neurons, thickening the myelination sheaf

and stimulating serotonin and other neurochemicals which enhance the child’s wellbeing”

(Rushton & Juola-Rushton, 2008). When teachers differentiate instruction and use the multi-

sensory approach, they are enriching a child’s education and supporting their unique learning

style.
The three-part drill developed by OG is an effective technique used in teaching new

reading concepts through systematic, explicit decoding instruction that emphasizes synthetic

phonics. The three-part drill has three multi-sensory steps aimed toward reaching unique

learning styles and optimizing brain function while using different hands-on materials. The three

skill sets are administered in this order: visual steps, auditory/kinesthetic steps, and blending

steps. “The three-part drill is a review of all phonetic concepts known or taught including

practicing phonetically irregular words using all learning pathways: visual, auditory, and

kinesthetic” (Scheffel, Shaw, & Shaw, 2008, p. 140).

The first step includes visually displaying graphemes (written letters) previously taught

while the children respond saying its corresponding phoneme (sound). During this time, the

teacher listens for correct responses and gauges student learning. He/she will re-insert the card

into the pack if students have difficulty. Repeated practice, along with auditory and visual

exposure to language, helps students master the concepts using more than one learning pathway.

Finally, the teacher will continue through the entire deck of cards until students have accurately

produced all learned sounds for each letter or cluster of letters. The way in which students

reproduce sounds becomes rhythmic, which encourages participation.

During the second step, students continue to verbalize their responses while being

introduced to a sand tray for kinesthetic practice. The sand tray is the child’s first attempt to
 WTS 1 and 2 page 10 of 18

write the letter they have learned while simultaneously speaking its letter/sound relationship. For

example, the teacher holds up the letter “h” on an index card; the child would respond by

correctly writing the letter in the sand while identifying the letter and its sound, “h, h says /h/.”

Research provided by Labat, Vallet, Magnan, and Ecalle (2015) indicates that, “writing practice

has been found to contribute more to letter recognition as well as to spelling in 5-year-old

children than any other type of training” (p. 382). Knowing the rules of language demonstrated

by the visual drill and applying them into writing demonstrated by the kinesthetic sand tray drill

helps children’s processing ability. Labat, Vallet, Magnan, & Ecalle (2015) state, “kinesthetic

processing leads to enhanced brain activation” (p.382).

The final step in the three-part drill includes blending sounds together. The teacher will

hold a flip chart or blending board while pointing to each letter, then sweep his/her hand across

the word as students respond by segmenting each sound and then blending into a syllable or

word. Students must not only use the sound patterns they have learned in isolation during the

visual drill, but also be able to apply them when decoding single or multi-syllabic words in the

blending drill.
To conclude, brain research and multisensory experts support the OG technique and it is

widely accepted as a means for delivering systematic phonics instruction to all learners. Borek

and Thompson (2003) described Multi-Sensory Learning (MSL) as “a natural way to teach

students. MSL theory posits that the more sensory pathways used and the more intensely they

are used, the more efficiently and effectively information is retained” (p. 244). People of all ages

learn new information through multisensory experiences, and the more literacy educators can

build on this principle, the more prepared students will be toward reaching language arts

standards. The procedure outlined in OG will further engage students, enhance reading

instruction at all levels, and incorporate the diverse learning styles found within the classroom.
Research Implications
 WTS 1 and 2 page 11 of 18

Guiding my research was the question “How does multi-sensory phonics instruction

affect reading achievement in the general education classroom?” Through visual, auditory, and

kinesthetic modalities, teachers create unique learning experiences that enhance a child’s

education and better support reading instruction. Children are more likely to respond to

instruction when the instruction matches their learning style. In a “brain-compatible” classroom,

teachers consider what is developmentally appropriate and use their knowledge of the five senses

to create enriching lessons that appeal to all learners. Phonics instruction can be further

enhanced by using systematic, explicit instruction that follows an appropriate scope and

sequence to learning letter/sound correspondence. Enhancing a child’s decoding ability and

phonics understanding will assist in reading comprehension and create positive lifelong reading

connections.
Moving forward, I plan to incorporate OG’s three-part drill into my guided reading block

as means to review and introduce new phonics concepts. I will include their scope and sequence

into my schedule and plan for regular informal and formal assessment. I also plan to work with

our Professional Learning Community (PLC) and literacy coach with emphasis on appropriate

phonics instruction and student progress along the reading continuum. With many new resources

and colleague support, I plan to implement a multi-sensory phonics approach to better support

my students and “provide instruction that supports their intellectual, social, and personal

development.”
Research-based Action Plan
Action Plan Summary Outline
1. Design guided reading lessons using OG’s three-part drill for phonics instruction.

Begin with initial c-qu concepts and continue as students reach proficiency.
2. Envision the lesson with students, using the OG approach.
3. Assess and improve lesson plans from measuring the envisioned delivery.
Targeted Student Learning Objective(s)
1. Standardized goal: CCSS ELA RF.1.3 Foundational Skills.
Know and apply grade-level phonic and word analysis skills in decoding words.
 WTS 1 and 2 page 12 of 18

2. Same

Task(s) and Essential Proficiency Criteria for Targeted Learning Objective(s)

1. Task 1: Students will increase phonics knowledge as measured by OG initial,

midterm, and final assessments.

2. Task 2: Students will increase overall reading level on the DRA and PALS.

3. Criteria that Prove Proficiency in Meeting Targeted Learning Objective(s)

a. Task 1: Students will increase to 80% proficiency in OG phonological

awareness and phonics skills assessment.

b. Task 2: Students will increase two or more DRA levels each trimester

and will reach a minimum District PALS score of 61 in the spring.

Method(s) to Assess Progress of Proficiency for Targeted Learning Objective(s)

1. Students will complete an assessment each trimester based on OG’s phonics

skills.

2. Compare DRA and PALS data to results from previous years.

Post-assessments
Self-Assessment of Instruction Related to WTS and Targeted Student Learning

Objective(s)
I feel confident in my acquired knowledge of OG’s multi-sensory approach to phonics

and believe in its vital role in reading success. Before OG, I lacked any formal assessment

measure to keep accountable to students’ phonics achievement. I only knew each child’s reading

level based on running records and informal observations. I have now created an assessment

tool, as guided by the OG scope and sequence, of spelling features to better track student growth

(Artifact A). Systematic phonics, vocabulary instruction, and writing are new literacy topics

receiving a lot of attention in our building and I’ve attended many professional development
 WTS 1 and 2 page 13 of 18

opportunities to work on these areas. I feel students are not equipped with proper phonics

instruction that prepares them for the demands of the DRA and PALS reading assessments.
I began my inquiry interested in multi-sensory learning opportunities found on Pinterest,

social media, and through conversations with my colleagues. I was concerned about my

students’ reading scores. I wanted to find an additional source that would benefit my students

and my reading instruction. OG is a new practice in my building and I have not begun to fully

implement the program. Upon further research, I understand that OG is not just for struggling

readers or special education teachers. It is an inclusive practice that all learners can utilize.
One insight I gained while creating the new phonics assessment spreadsheet was how

creating proficiency percentages deepened my understanding of the developmental process of

language patterns. Before OG, I followed the pacing guide accompanied by Good Habits, Great

Readers and never saw the “big picture” or how many spelling features I was teaching in one

year. This basal provided limited exposure to each spelling feature and was taught whole group.

This fall, I will begin teaching multi-sensory phonics to a small group during guided reading

instruction to better support readers of all abilities.

Assessment of Student Performance Related to Standardized Expectations
Based on envisioning delivery of the lesson plan, I foresee a significant improvement in

class performance pertaining to CCSS ELA RF.1.3: “Know and apply grade-level phonic and

word analysis skills in decoding words.” I also foresee an increase in the number of students

reaching an Independent 16F reading score as measured by the DRA. I anticipate an increase of

over 70% of students making grade level compared to the previous year, when 55% were

proficient. I will also be able to better track first grade phonics skill acquisition by measuring

learning outcomes in the initial, midterm, and final semesters using OG assessment templates.
Implementing the three-part drill means students will be more engaged in learning and

responsive to instruction. The three-part drill responds to the diverse needs of students in my

classroom by allowing children to experience multi-sensory activities that activate different

 WTS 1 and 2 page 14 of 18

learning pathways. Previously, students had manipulated magnet letters as means of word study

in guided reading. Adding additional multi-sensory experiences will motivate children and

increase participation. Students will be better equipped to read and understand grade level text

because of learning new decoding strategies and the increased rigor of phonics study. I’m eager

to gain more control over phonics instruction and let go of the traditional learning techniques to

be more inclusive in my practice. OG will allow me to better assess student learning outcomes

toward meeting the CCSS and help solidify my phonics instruction.

Comparison of Learning Environment While Learning Targeted Objective(s)
Rather than continue the basic, less engaging current instructional methods, I plan to

increase reading participation within my small group setting. I will also place these phonics

activities in literacy centers during daily five rotations to promote self-directed phonics practice

and partner students together to further demonstrate their learning. In past years, I had children

who struggle with letter recognition and rote memorization skills working with advanced

readers. This new multi-sensory approach will allow children from remedial all the way to

advanced groups learn phonics skills using sensory materials matched to their learning styles.

With adequate preparation followed by teaching expectations of materials, the introduction of the

three-part drill will result in fewer behavior problems during our ELA block and allow for more

explicit teaching time. Research shows struggling readers with IEPs or behavior concerns

flourish when immersed in OG content and are easily included in the reading process.

Reflection on Entire Learning Process

Stepping out of the comfortable practice that has proven unsuccessful and leaping forward

toward a new multi-sensory approach took a lot of courage and planning. As I further develop

classroom management and language arts curriculum, I will continue to consider unique

philosophies and share new information with my colleagues. I will continue seeking cutting

edge research related to reading instruction and make professional decisions that support student
 WTS 1 and 2 page 15 of 18

learning objectives. I will continue to reflect upon and adapt my instruction to better meet the

needs of my students and prepare them for 21st century learning success.
What Worked or Should Work
1. It was worth investing my time in an area I have struggled with and I enjoyed

researching new ideas that will positively impact my teaching.

2. The “guessing” in phonics proficiency when grading individual student performance

should be eliminated now that I can keep accurate records.

3. Being given time to research OG techniques has allowed me to envision how I want

to make appropriate changes in my phonics instruction.

4. I may be able to better support struggling readers and advanced readers alike by

engaging them in hands-on, multi-sensory activities.

What Did Not Work or May Not Work
1. It will take time to learn how to store and organize all the materials used in OG.
2. Some children may be disruptive when given sand trays to practice letters or they may

spill.
My Next Steps
1. Work with grade level team and literacy coach to determine an appropriate pacing

guide.
2. Develop a plan to integrate OG into more subject areas (handwriting, writing,

vocabulary, etc.).
 WTS 1 and 2 page 16 of 18

References
Borek, J. A., & Thompson, S. M. (2003). Multisensory learning in inclusive classrooms.

Academic Exchange Quarterly, (3), 244. doi: 10.1002/acp.3116

Churchill, K., Durdel, J., & Kenney, M. (1998, May 1). Hear it, feel it, see it: Improving early

reading acquisition through a multisensory phonemic awareness approach.

Labat, H., Vallet, G., Magnan, A., & Ecalle J. (2015). Facilitating effect of multisensory letter

encoding on reading and spelling in 5-year-old children. Applied Cognitive Psychology,

29(3), 381-391. doi: 10.1002/acp.3116

Liuzzo, J. (2014). A multi-sensory reading methodology teacher training manual. Northville,

MI: The Institute for Multi-Sensory Education.

R. Malatesha, J., Mary, D., & Regina, B. (2002). Teaching Reading in an Inner-City School

through a Multisensory Teaching Approach. Annals of Dyslexia, (1), 229.

Rushton, S., & Juola-Rushton, A. (2008). Classroom learning environment, brain research and

the No Child Left Behind initiative: 6 years Later. Early Childhood Education Journal,

36(1), 87-92. doi: 10.1007/s10643-008-0244-5

Scheffel, D. L., Shaw, J. C., & Shaw, R. (2008). The efficacy of a supplemental multisensory

reading program for first-grade students. Reading Improvement, 45(3), 139-152.

Artifact A: Phonics Skills Assessment (old vs. new)

The first image is my previous informal assessment guide for phonics instruction (created by
OG) and the bottom formal rubric I created following OG scope and sequence. In the old
example, I would highlight the concepts the children performed with mastery and continue
teaching each phonics skill in order. The new assessment guide has space provided for initial,
midterm, and final phonics scores to reflect upon each child’s reading development and make
instructional changes to better support students. Each phonics feature now relates to a score to
provide evidence of mastery.
 WTS 1 and 2 page 17 of 18

Artifact B: Weekly Guided Reading Lesson Plan (old vs. new)

The first image is my previous weekly guided reading schedule. The bottom image is my revised
guided reading lesson plan that includes the OG three-part drill. The new lesson plan is more
detailed to include phonics skills, sight words, and application in reading and writing. I also
included a section for a weekly running record to monitor student progress.
WTS 1 and 2 page 18 of 18