mortaza zibaei sani; Mohammad Mohammadi pour; Abulqasem Shakiba
Abstract
Abstract
The present study aimed to compare the effectiveness of brain-based and multi-sensory learning on the working memory of third-grade students with math disorders. The study followed an experimental design with a pre-test and post-test, with a control group. Forty-five third-grade students with ...
Read More
Abstract
The present study aimed to compare the effectiveness of brain-based and multi-sensory learning on the working memory of third-grade students with math disorders. The study followed an experimental design with a pre-test and post-test, with a control group. Forty-five third-grade students with math disorders were selected from Sabzevar Learning Disorders Center in the academic year of 2022 through purposeful and accessible sampling, and were randomly divided into three groups of equal size. The experimental groups received separate training in brain-based and multi-sensory learning, while the control group did not receive any training. The research tool was Danmin and Carpenter's Working Memory Scale (1983), and the data was analyzed through a repeated measures design with Benferroni's post hoc test. The results suggested a positive effect of both training methodologies on active memory. The effectiveness of the brain-based learning method was found to be superior to the multi-sensory training in both the post-test and follow-up periods (P<0.05). These findings suggest that both methods can be employed to address working memory difficulties in students with math learning disabilities.
Keywords: Brain-Based Learning, Multisensory Method, Working Memory, Dyscalculia.
Extended Abstract
Introduction
Disability in learning has always been a challenge and it becomes more important when students have problems learning in school despite being intelligent, making it difficult for them to continue their education (Chahardooli et al., 2021).
Evidence shows that students with dyscalculia generally have defects in using their working memory (Seifnaraghi and Naderi, 2016). Working memory helps to use the memory system flexibly, review the received information, keep it in mind and relate it to the previous knowledge and plan for future activities (Abbasi, 2020).
Considering students’ problems in learning disorders has prompted therapists to use various corrective measures to solve memory problems and improve cognitive processes. A measure is brain-based learning education (Hassani et al., 2015). It is the activities done to increase the concentration and improve students’ intellectual abilities. It includes different aspects such as vigilance combined with relaxed alertness for creating a pleasant emotional environment for the brain and learning, orchestrated immersion in complex experience with the aim of creating pleasant, optimal and rich opportunities for learning and ultimately active processing of experience for creating optimal and rich opportunities for learning (Saleh and Mazlan, 2019).
Also, another method to repair the students’ problems with learning disabilities is the multisensory method which emphasizes having balance in using the visual, auditory and tactile senses (Seifnaraghi and Naderi, 2016). In this method, we try to create a balance between different senses by involving several sensory receptors, and by combining visual, auditory, kinetic and tactile methods to correct students' learning problems (Kakavand et al., 2017).
Research question
Is there a difference between the effectiveness of brain-based learning and multisensory learning on the working memory of students with dyscalculia?
Method
This was an experimental research with pre-test, post-test, and a control group. The statistical population was all the third-grade elementary school students who had been referred to an educational center for the rehabilitation of children with learning difficulties in Sabzevar city, Iran, in the academic year 2021-2022. They were diagnosed with primary dyscalculia by their teachers. Amongst them, 45 students were selected by targeted and accessible sampling method and randomly placed in two experiment groups and a control group.
Research tools
Danmin and Carpenter's working memory scale (1983) was used to gather the data. This questionnaire measures children's working memory and it has 27 sentences in six parts: two-sentence, three-sentence, four-sentence, five-sentence, six-sentence, and seven-sentence sections. Regarding the internal reliability of this scale, in a preliminary study, Asadzadeh (2008) obtained a reliability coefficient of 0.88. The reliability of this scale in our study was 0.74 using Cronbach's alpha coefficient.
The brain-based learning education program was implemented in experiment group 1 based on the 12 principles adapted from Caine et al (2005). In experiment group 2, a multi-sensory training program was implemented with a model that was designed by Mousavi and Ali-Attari (2015) based on Fernald's model (1943) for dyscalculia. The students received the training in eight 60-minute group sessions during the week.
Results
In the post-test and follow-up, the average working memory score of the experiment groups was higher than that of the control group, which shows the effectiveness of brain-based and multisensory training in increasing the working memory of students with dyscalculia (Table 3).
Table 3. Indicators of the research variable in the experiment and control groups in different stages of the study
Variable
Group
Pre-Test
Post-Test
Follow Up
Average
Standard Deviation
Average
Standard Deviation
Average
Standard Deviation
Working Memory
Brain-Based
55.93
3.26
63.60
2.27
62
3.35
چند حسی
56.7333
4.03
3.27
56.4
9.10887
Multisensory
56.73
4.03
58.67
3.27
56.4
9.10
Control
55.27
3.71
54.87
3.78
54.47
3.50
Table 5. Bonferroni test results to compare working memory marginal averages according to test stages
Source Of Comparison
Difference In Averages
The Standard Error
P
Confidence Interval 95%
Lower Bank
Upper Bank
Pre-Test-Post-Test
-3.067
0.519
0.000
-4.362
-1.771
Pre-Test-Follow-Up
-1.644
0.912
0.236
-3.919
0.630
Post-Test - Follow-Up
1.422
0.845
0.300
-0.685
3.530
Table 6. The results of the estimated marginal means related to the groups
Group
Levels
Average
The Standard Error
Confidence Interval 95%
lower bank
upper bank
Brain Based
Pre-Exam
55.933
0.950
54.016
57.851
Post-Test
93.600
0.848
61.889
65.311
Follow Up
62.000
1.539
58.895
65.105
Multisensory
Pre-Exam
56.733
0.950
54.816
58.651
Post-Test
58.667
0.848
56.856
60.377
Follow Up
56.400
1.539
53.295
59.505
Control
Pre-Exam
55.267
0.950
53.349
57.184
Post-Test
54.867
0.848
53.156
56.577
Follow Up
54.467
1.539
51.362
57.572
Table 7. Bonferroni test results to compare working memory marginal means
Source Of Comparison
Difference In Averages
The Standard Error
P
Confidence Interval 95%
Lower Bank
Upper Bank
Brain-Based-Multisensory
3.2444
1.20342
0.030
0.2435
6.2454
Brain-Centered-Witness
5.6444
1.20342
0.000
2.6435
8.6454
Multisensory - Evidence
2.4000
1.20342
0.158
-0.6009
5.4009
There was a significant difference between the effectiveness of brain-based and multisensory training methods (P<0.05). The efficiency of the brain-based method was more than the multisensory method. There was a significant difference between the mean scores of the brain-based and control groups (P<0.05); the brain-based method had a positive effect on working memory, but there was no significant difference between the average scores of the multisensory and control groups (p>0.05); the multisensory method does not seem to have a positive effect on working memory.
Discussion
The performance of experiment groups increased after participating in the intervention sessions compared to the control group students. Also, regarding working memory, the performance of students in the brain-based experiment group was higher than the multisensory group.
In explaining the effect of brain-based learning on the working memory of students with dyscalculia, it can be said that while improving people's capabilities in processing and storing information, verbal and visual memory, this method increases the prefrontal cortex activities, improving students' working memory (Shivandi and Khalili, 2020).
As an explanation for the greater effectiveness of brain-based learning education compared to the multi-sensory method on working memory, it can be said that brain-based learning empowers the minds of students with learning disabilities to change their mental focus between different stimuli and have more flexibility. Since this method is based on conscious learning and training, it provides the basis for selective focus in the learning process, which happens less in the multisensory method. So, it is logical that brain-based learning has a greater effect on increasing working memory than the multisensory method.