Examining the Benefits and Prevalence of Modality Considerations in Special Education

Abstract

Questions related to the validity, efficacy, and prevalence of the psychoeducational practice of modifying instruction in accord with children's relative modality strengths are examined in a research review and in a survey of practicing special education teachers. Despite attempts to assess relative modality strength using 32 separate tests, subtests, or combinations thereof in conjunction with a variety of instructional interventions, no one has successfully demonstrated that beginning reading instruction can be improved by modality and instructional matching. In spite of the absence of evidence that supports modality instructional matching, textbooks urge teachers to adopt this approach, and the majority of special education teachers believe in and employ this model. Implications of these findings are discuseed both for teacher training programs and for instructional practice.Psychoeducational diagnosis typically aims to produce two kinds of information, both of which are seen as central to planning an individualized program of instruction. The most basic information acquired in diagnosis is an educational inventory of the academic skills which the learner has either mastered or failed to master. The second kind of information generated by diagnosis is primarily psychological in nature, focusing on the unique cognitive, perceptual, and expressive abilities that the learner brings with him to the instructional setting. While the first kind of information is essential to determining what should be taught, the second is suggestive of how something should be taught. The particular constellation of psychological abilities is said to reveal individual learning styles which, in turn, determine special instructional methodologies and materials. One aspect of learning style that has received considerable attention in special education is children's modality preferences (Carlson

Differential Diagnosis—Prescriptive Teaching: A Critical Appraisal

“…Finally, achievement is studied to determine if children whose instructional program matched their modality strengths surpassed those whose program matched their modality weakness. Arter and Jenkins (1977) and Ysseldyke (1973) have reviewed the modality matching research. Arter and Jenkins' review is the more comprehensive, including 15 studies in which children identified as auditory, visual or kinesthetic learners were presented with reading instruction based on auditory, visual or kinesthetic approaches.…”

“…A number of explanations have been posed that could account for this general failure to support the DD-PT model (Arter & Jenkins, 1977;Hammill & Larsen, 1974a;Minskoff, 1975;Newcomer et al, 1975;and Proger et al, 1973).…”

“…The DD-PT model is preferred by the vast majority of special education teachers (Arter & Jenkins, 1977). In a state-wide survey of Illinois it was found that 82% of special education teachers believed that they could, and should, DD-PT: A Critical Appraisal 61 train weak abilities, 99% thought that a child's modality strengths and weaknesses should be a major consideration when devising educational prescriptions, and 93% believed that their students had learned more when they modified instruction to match modality strengths.…”

Sequential Processing: Implications for At‐risk Preschoolers

“…Mann and Liberman suggested that having this type of information about high-risk kindergartners lends itself to instructional accommodations. Although beyond the focus of the present article, the psychological processing literature deserves scrutiny before one advocates aptitude-treatment accommodations based on processing characteristics (see Arter & Jenkins, 1977;Cronbach & Snow, 1977;Hammill & Larsen, 1974;Hartlage & Telzrow, 1983). However, the Mann and Liberman (1984) study does prompt interest into further investigation of the diagnostic significance of cognitive processing characteristics for students of primary-school age.…”

The equivocal nature of special education interventions

“…The clinical tradition and historical roots associated with many special education practices influence strongly perceptions about efficacy. A prime example is the modality concept where Arter and Jenkins (1977) found overwhelming support for the concept among teachers, even in the face of many negative evaluations (e.g., Arter & Jenkins, 1979;Kampwirth & Bates, 1980;Ysseldyke, 1973). The negative evaluations tend to be discounted in favor of unsubstantiated claims that capitalize on the irresistible intuitive appeal possessed by many special interventions.…”