Volume 11 - Articles-1400
MEJDS (2021) 11: 33 |
Back to browse issues page
Ethics code: A-10-2386-1
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Sayedie M S, Tabatabaee S S, Tabatabaee, T S, Shahabizadeh F. Effects of Five Senses Enhancement Training on Cognitive Ability in Students With Reading Disabilities. MEJDS 2021; 11 :33-33
URL: http://jdisabilstud.org/article-1-2434-en.html
URL: http://jdisabilstud.org/article-1-2434-en.html
Malakeh Sadat Sayedie1 
, Samaneh Sadat Tabatabaee *2 , Toktam Sadat Tabatabaee,2 , Fatemeh Shahabizadeh2
, Samaneh Sadat Tabatabaee *2 , Toktam Sadat Tabatabaee,2 , Fatemeh Shahabizadeh2
1- Birjand Branch, Islamic Azad University
2- Department of Psychology, Birjand Branch, Islamic Azad University
2- Department of Psychology, Birjand Branch, Islamic Azad University
Abstract: (3352 Views)
Background & Objectives: Reading and its disability are the major learning areas that can specifically challenge students with Learning Disabilities (LDs). Students with LDs are more significantly affected by cognitive problems. These students often grapple with disorganized thinking that can, in turn, generate other problems, like issues in problem-solving, planning, and life organizing. The role of cognitive ability in various LDs and the need for improving this ability has been well documented. When managing students with LDs, the primary focus must be on nurturing the 5 senses. This could be achieved using multi-sensory teaching techniques to help the learners grasp new data by various methods. The present study aimed to investigate the effects of the 5 senses enhancement on cognitive ability in students with LDs.
Methods: This was a quasi-experimental study with a pretest-posttest-follow-up and a control group design. The population of the study consisted of all students referring to the Correction Center for Learning Disorders in Ferdows City, Iran, in the academic year of 2019-2020. The convenience sampling method was used to select a sample of thirty 7-8-year-old students with LDs. The selected students were randomly assigned into the control and experimental groups. PASS was applied to determine the sample size. Moreover, the error level (0.05) and the test power (0.9) was used to determine the sample size (n=15/group). In other words, the total sample size of the study was estimated to be 30 subjects. The inclusion criteria of the research were being diagnosed with LDs; presenting hearing and vision health according to the assessment plan; studying in regular public schools, an age of 7-8 years, and no mental health issues. The exclusion criteria of the study included absence from ≥2 sessions, simultaneous participation in another program, and receiving training on learning and completing homework for each session. To ensure the absence of intellectual disabilities in students, the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (Wechsler, 2003) was administered. For cognitive assessment, the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (Gioia et al., 2000) was completed by the parents in all evaluation stages. The experimental group received the 5 sense enhancement training (ten 70-minute sessions, 3 sessions/week); however, the controls received no treatment. Two months after the intervention, the follow-up test was performed. The control group also received training courses to observe all ethical principles. To analyze the obtained data, descriptive statistics, such as mean and standard as well as repeated-measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and Bonferroni posthoc test were used. Statistical analyses were performed in SPSS at the significance level of 0.05.
Results: The ANOVA data of cognitive ability was significant for time effect (within the subjects) (p<0.001), group effect (intermediate subjects) (p<0.001), and time*group effect; the effect of group intervention for cognitive ability equaled 0.708. Thus, there was a significant difference in cognitive competence between the experimental and control groups during the research stages, highlighting the effects of the intervention. Moreover, in the experimental group, a significant difference was observed in cognitive ability between pretest and posttest and follow-up stages (p<0.001). However, there was no significant difference between the posttest and follow-up stages (p=0.207), reflecting that the effect of the intervention in the follow-up stage remained stable.
Conclusion: The present study findings suggested that the five-sense enhancement training can be effective as a timely intervention on cognitive ability in students with reading disabilities; thus, implementing this training is recommended to LD instructors.
Methods: This was a quasi-experimental study with a pretest-posttest-follow-up and a control group design. The population of the study consisted of all students referring to the Correction Center for Learning Disorders in Ferdows City, Iran, in the academic year of 2019-2020. The convenience sampling method was used to select a sample of thirty 7-8-year-old students with LDs. The selected students were randomly assigned into the control and experimental groups. PASS was applied to determine the sample size. Moreover, the error level (0.05) and the test power (0.9) was used to determine the sample size (n=15/group). In other words, the total sample size of the study was estimated to be 30 subjects. The inclusion criteria of the research were being diagnosed with LDs; presenting hearing and vision health according to the assessment plan; studying in regular public schools, an age of 7-8 years, and no mental health issues. The exclusion criteria of the study included absence from ≥2 sessions, simultaneous participation in another program, and receiving training on learning and completing homework for each session. To ensure the absence of intellectual disabilities in students, the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (Wechsler, 2003) was administered. For cognitive assessment, the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (Gioia et al., 2000) was completed by the parents in all evaluation stages. The experimental group received the 5 sense enhancement training (ten 70-minute sessions, 3 sessions/week); however, the controls received no treatment. Two months after the intervention, the follow-up test was performed. The control group also received training courses to observe all ethical principles. To analyze the obtained data, descriptive statistics, such as mean and standard as well as repeated-measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and Bonferroni posthoc test were used. Statistical analyses were performed in SPSS at the significance level of 0.05.
Results: The ANOVA data of cognitive ability was significant for time effect (within the subjects) (p<0.001), group effect (intermediate subjects) (p<0.001), and time*group effect; the effect of group intervention for cognitive ability equaled 0.708. Thus, there was a significant difference in cognitive competence between the experimental and control groups during the research stages, highlighting the effects of the intervention. Moreover, in the experimental group, a significant difference was observed in cognitive ability between pretest and posttest and follow-up stages (p<0.001). However, there was no significant difference between the posttest and follow-up stages (p=0.207), reflecting that the effect of the intervention in the follow-up stage remained stable.
Conclusion: The present study findings suggested that the five-sense enhancement training can be effective as a timely intervention on cognitive ability in students with reading disabilities; thus, implementing this training is recommended to LD instructors.
Type of Study: Original Research Article |
Subject:
Psychology
References
1. 1. Cortiella C, Horowitz SH. The state of learning disabilities: Facts, trends and emerging issues. 3rd ed. New York: National Center for Learning Disabilities; 2014, pp: 2–45.
2. 2. Ouherrou N, Elhammoumi O, Benmarrakchi F, El Kafi J. Comparative study on emotions analysis from facial expressions in children with and without learning disabilities in virtual learning environment. Educ Inf Technol. 2019;24(2):1777–92. [DOI]
3. 3. Nabizade Nodehi R, Borjali A, Esteki M, Farrokhi N. Two-hemisphere training on planning and response inhibition in Auditory Dyslexic students. Middle Eastern Journal of Disability Studies. 2019;9:117. [Persian] [Article]
4. 4. Wallace JC, Kass SJ, Stanny CJ. The cognitive failures questionnaire revisited: dimensions and correlates. J Gen Psychol. 2002;129(3):238–56. [DOI]
5. 5. Cohen D, Plaza M, Perez-Diaz F, Lanthier O, Chauvin D, Hambourg N, et al. Individual cognitive training of reading disability improves word identification and sentence comprehension in adults with mild mental retardation. Res Dev Disabil. 2006;27(5):501–16. [DOI]
6. 6. Westerberg H, Klingberg T. Changes in cortical activity after training of working memory--a single-subject analysis. Physiol Behav. 2007;92(1–2):186–92. [DOI]
7. 7. Bull R, Espy KA, Wiebe SA. Short-term memory, working memory, and executive functioning in preschoolers: longitudinal predictors of mathematical achievement at age 7 years. Dev Neuropsychol. 2008;33(3):205–28. [DOI]
8. 8. Sharfi K, Rosenblum S. Executive functions, time organization and quality of life among adults with learning disabilities. PLoS One. 2016;11(12):e0166939. [DOI]
9. 9. Klašnja-Milićević A, Marošan Z, Ivanović M, Savić N, Vesin B. The future of learning multisensory experiences: visual, audio, smell and taste senses. In: Methodologies and Intelligent Systems for Technology Enhanced Learning, 8th International Conference. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2019. pp: 213–21. [DOI]
10. 10. Kontra C, Goldin-Meadow S, Beilock SL. Embodied learning across the life span. Top Cogn Sci. 2012;4(4):731–9. [DOI]
11. 11. Kátai Z, Juhász K, Adorjáni AK. On the role of senses in education. Computers & Education. 2008;51(4):1707–17. [DOI]
12. 12. Howes D. Nose-wise: olfactory metaphors in mind. In: Holley A, Schaal B, Rouby C, Dubois D, Gervais R, editors. Olfaction, taste, and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2002. pp: 67–81. [DOI]
13. 13. Coffield F, MoseleyD, Hall E, Ecclestone K. Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: a systematic and critical review, London: Learning and Skills Research Centre; 2004. [Article]
14. 14. Ponticorvo M, Di Fuccio R, Ferrara F, Rega A, Miglino O. Multisensory educational materials: five senses to learn. In: Methodologies and Intelligent Systems for Technology Enhanced Learning, 8th International Conference. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2019. pp: 45–52. [DOI]
15. 15. Alkasasbeh AA, Ghinea G, Grønli T-M. The impact of having olfactory media on user performance: Scented vs worded images. In: 2019 IEEE Conference on e-Learning, e-Management e- Services (IC3e). 2019. pp: 7–11. [DOI]
16. 16. Brosh I, Barkai E. Learning-induced long-term synaptic modifications in the olfactory cortex. Curr Neurovasc Res. 2004;1(4):389–95. [DOI]
17. 17. Akpınar B, Özdaş F, Yıldırım B, Batdı V. The analysis of the effects of olfactive stimulus in learning in context of educational technology. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2013;103:954–62. [DOI]
18. 18. Zhou J, Su Q, Liu P. A metaphorical analysis of five senses and emotions in Mandarin Chinese. In: Chinese Lexical Semantics. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2020. pp: 607–17. [DOI]
19. 19. Bower GH. Mood and memory. Am Psychol. 1981;36(2):129–48. [DOI]
20. 20. Forgas JP. Mood effects on cognition: affective influences on the content and process of information processing and behavior. In: Jeon M, editor. Emotions and affect in human factors and human-computer interaction. San Diego: Academic Press; 2017. pp: 89–122. [DOI]
21. 21. Estaki M, Kochak Entezar R, Zadkhoot L. Effectiveness of integrating multisensory training and sensory integration on signs of reading and writing among students at elementary schools. Empowering Exceptional Children. 2016;7(1):95–106. [DOI]
22. 22. Shehni Yailagh M, Karami J, Shokrkon H, Mehrabizadeh Honarmand M. Prevalence of dysgraphia and the effects of multi-sense therapy on reduction of writing difficulties of primary school students in Ahvaz. Journal of Educational Scinces. 2004;10(3):129–44. [Persian] [Article]
23. 23. Borm GF, Fransen J, Lemmens WAJG. A simple sample size formula for analysis of covariance in randomized clinical trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(12):1234–8. [DOI]
24. 24. Desu M, Raghavarao D. Sample size methodology. Elsevier; 1990. [DOI]
25. 25. Afrooz Q, Kamkari K, Shokrzadeh S, Hellat A. Meghyas–haye hoosh Wechsler koodakan– noskhe 4 WISC–IV azmoon–haye asli va janeshin [Guide to implementing, scoring, and interpreting children’s Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-IV)]. Tehran: Elme Ostadan Pub; 2012, pp: 1–30. [Persian]
26. 26. Sadeghi A, Rabiee M, Abedi MR. Validation and reliability of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-IV. 2011;7(28):377–86. [Persian] [Article]
27. 27. Gioia GA, Isquith PK, Guy SC, Kenworthy L. Behavior rating inventory of executive function: BRIEF. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources; 2000.
28. 28. Memisevic H, Sinanovic O. Executive functions as predictors of visual-motor integration in children with intellectual disability. Percept Mot Skills. 2013;117(3):913–22. [DOI]
29. 29. Karimi MT, Mousavi Nadoushan SM, Madadi F, Kamali M. Evaluation of the force applied on the hip joints in walking with and without Scottish rite orthosis in subjects with Perthes disease. Middle Eastern Journal of Disability Studies. 2016;6:294-8. [Article]
30. 30. Memisevic H. Self-regulation in children with intellectual disability. Journal of Special Education and Rehabilitation. 2015;16(3–4):71–38. [DOI]
31. 31. Abdolmohamadi K, Alizadeh H, Farhad GSA, Taiebli M, Fathi A. Psychometric properties of Behavioral Rating Scale of Executive Functions (BRIEF) in children aged 6 to 12 years. Quarterly of Educational Measurement. 2018;8(30):135–51. [Persian] [DOI]
32. 32. Shahabi R, Akbari Zardkhaneh S, Kavousian J, Ansari Z. Predict of obsessive compulsive based on cognitive variables (working memory, inhibition, shifting, updating and short term memory). Journal of Cognitive Psychology. 2017;5(1):31-40.[Persian] [DOI]
33. 33. Laird JB. Abundances in field dwarf stars. II - Carbon and nitrogen abundances. Astrophysical Journal. 1985;289:556. [DOI]
34. 34. Fernald GM. Remedial techniques in basic school subjects. Austin, TX: PRO-ED; 1988.
35. 35. Ayres AJ, Tickle LS. Hyper-responsivity to touchand vestibular stimuli as a predictor of positive response to sensory integration pro c e d u res by autistic children. Am J Occupa Ther.1980;34(6):375-81. [DOI]
36. 36. Abd Ghani K, Gathercole SE. Working memory and study skills: a comparison between dyslexic and non-dyslexic adult learners. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2013;97:271–7. [DOI]
37. 37. Hossinkhanzade AA, Azadimanesh P, Mohammadi H, Ahmadi S, Sadeghi S. The effectiveness of programs to strengthen working memory and visual perception on improving reading students with reading disorder. Journal of Psychological Studies. 2016;12(2):49–66. [Persian] [DOI]
38. 38. Narimani M, Soleymani E. The effectivenes of cognitive rehabilitation on executive functions (working memory and attention) and academic achievement in students with math learning disorder. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 2013;2(3):91–115. [Persian] [Article]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
