There are a vast number of programs, products and resources available for both teachers and parents to select from for intervention purposes. Some of the more popular approaches and products have been reviewed by university-based research teams* to determine their value for individuals with learning difficulties and disabilities.
Their findings and recommendations are summarised below.
The decision to recommend or not recommend particular programs has been based on the current evidence available linking particular programs and instructional approaches to improved results in specific academic areas. Research strongly suggests that interventions for learning disabilities should target the component skills of reading, spelling, mathematics and writing – not other areas of functioning. They should also be cost effective. It is possible that some of the findings may change as additional research is completed and published.
The idea that individuals have unique learning styles has been a popular theory for many decades. However, there is little evidence to indicate that individuals have an innate preference for receiving new information via a particular sense (e.g. visual, auditory, or kinaesthetic). Another instructional approach that has maintained popularity is that of “multi-sensory” learning. Whilst providing information to children in various formats is likely to be beneficial, “multi-sensory” teaching approaches are not well validated in current research.
The first two sections of the table relate to Direct Instruction programs and Structured Synthetic Phonics programs. There are a great many programs and resources that can be viewed as falling under these two headings and only a small number of examples have been included in the table.
Direct Instruction (DI)
Refers to a rigorously developed, fast-paced approach that is designed to teach individuals new skills in a step-by-step manner by instructors using a carefully designed script. Participants receive immediate feedback and are expected to achieve mastery of each skill before progressing to the next level. The research evidence available suggests that DI programs are frequently found to be amongst the most successful intervention approaches available.
Structured Synthetic Phonics (SSP)
programs are designed to teach children the predictable relationships between the sounds of speech (phonemes) and the alphabet letters (graphemes) we use in written language. Essentially, when a child learns to read using synthetic phonics they learn to link letters to speech sounds and then blend (synthesise) these sounds together to read words. Analytic phonics programs typically introduce whole words and initial sounds only – anticipating that children will induce the other letter-sound relationships. In synthetic phonics programs the sound-letter relationships are taught in a predetermined sequence using a systematic and explicit approach. Children are taught to read and spell accurately and fluently beginning with simple words like at, in and pin before progressing to words comprising more complex spelling patterns such as light, strange and production. There is a wealth of research evidence available documenting the success of SSP programs as both a whole class approach to literacy instruction and as an intervention (delivered individually or in small groups). For more information on structured synthetic phonics programs see Appendices 3 and 4.
Programs
(Some examples: Spelling Mastery, Reading Mastery, Elementary Maths Mastery, DISTAR programs, Teach Your Child to Read in 100 Easy Lessons)
Designed to Target
- Reading
- Spelling
- Maths
- Language
- Writing
Research Evidence
Strong research evidence from independent studies indicating positive outcomes achieved across most academic areas when delivered with fidelity (i.e. the directions given to the instructor must be followed exactly as prescribed).
Cost/Student
Low/Moderate
(Depends on the program – e.g. Teach Your Child to Read in 100 Easy Lessons is Low/others are Moderate)
(Some examples: Intervention: Sounds-Write, MultiLit, MiniLit, MacqLit, Phonic Books UK. Whole Class: Sounds-Write, Letters and Sounds, PreLit, PLD Literacy and Learning, Little Learners Love Literacy, Phonic Books UK, No Nonsense Phonics Skills, Jolly Phonics, Read Write Inc.)
Designed to target
- Reading
- Spelling
Research Evidence
Very strong independent research evidence worldwide that shows programs based upon Structured Synthetic Phonics provide the best opportunity to produce significant improvements in children’s literacy skills that are maintained long-term. Needs to be delivered by a skilled practitioner with fidelity.
Cost/Student
Low/Moderate (depends on program and intensity of delivery)
Designed to target
- Reading
Research Evidence
Independent research has produced inconsistent results and while some students make gains, it is typically those with mild reading difficulties. These children may have made more progress using a more cost-effective alternative program. Overall, little evidence to support its effectiveness in remediating significant reading difficulties, particularly when there is evidence of phonological processing weaknesses.
Cost/Student
High
(Fountas and Pinnell)
Designed to target
- Reading
Research Evidence
Limited independent research to support the program’s effectiveness in remediating reading difficulties.
Cost/Student
High
Designed to target
- Reading
- Writing
- Motor Skills
- Attention
Research Evidence
There is no scientific evidence to support the use of eye exercises or vision therapy to directly or indirectly treat learning disabilities.
Cost/Student
Moderate/High
Designed to target
- Academics
- Memory
- Motor Skills
- Speech and Language
- Reasoning
Research Evidence
No independent research evidence available to support claims that the Arrowsmith exercises – designed to improve neuroplasticity – improve academic skills or remediate learning difficulties.
Cost/Student
High
Designed to target
- Concentration and focus
- Memory
- Academics
- Physical co-ordination
- Relationships
- Self-responsibility
- Organisation skills
Research Evidence
Supporting studies are methodologically flawed and provide no explanation of how the exercises bring about improvements. Overall, there is no good-quality, peer reviewed research evidence to support the claims made for the effectiveness of Brain Gym in improving academic performance.
Cost/Student
Low/Moderate (depends on intensity of delivery)
Designed to target
- Literacy skills
- Language
- Attention
- Cognition
- Working Memory
- Executive Function
- Processing
Research Evidence
There is some debate about the theoretical underpinnings of the program and only one independent study has investigated its effectiveness. Therefore, due to a lack of research evidence, its potential to remediate deficits associated with learning disabilities cannot be commented on.
Cost/Student
Moderate/High (depends on intensity of delivery)
Designed to target
- Working Memory
- Attention
- Reading Comprehension
- Mathematics
Research Evidence
Although the program has been found in some studies to show improvements on tasks similar to those taught, there has been limited evidence that the benefits generalise to academic learning (e.g. reading, writing, maths) or are maintained over long periods. Positive results appear to be inconsistent within and across studies. Ongoing research is occurring but the current cost (very high) attached to delivery makes it difficult to recommend.
Cost/Student
High
Designed to target
- Language
- Reading
- Memory
- Attention
- Processing
- Sequencing
Research Evidence
Although some studies show benefits from the FFW program, these are no greater than those of other comparable, less expensive, intervention programs and do not appear to be maintained in the long-term.
Cost/Student
High
Designed to target
- Reading
Research Evidence
Limited evidence for the effectiveness of coloured glasses and overlays as an intervention for reading difficulties. Independent research shows no conclusive pattern of results and methodological issues. There is also no objective scientific evidence to support the existence of Scotopic Sensitivity Syndrome, also known as Irlen Syndrome.
Cost/Student
Moderate/High (for glasses)
Designed to target
- Reading
- Writing
- Maths
- Attention
Research Evidence
Limited independent research evidence evaluating the program and its claims. Overall, there is a lack of theoretical and high quality research evidence to support the program’s effectiveness.
Cost/Student
Cost unknown
(Example: DORE/DDAT program)
Designed to target
- Academic skills
- Motor skills
- Social skills
Research Evidence
No scientific research that exercise programs will result in improvement in reading or other academic or social skills. There is also no evidence that such programs are effective treatments for ADHD or ASD.
Cost/Student
Moderate/High
Designed to target
- Memory
- Attention
- Speed
- Flexibility
- Problem solving
Research Evidence
Inconsistent research evidence to support the program’s effectiveness in improving targeted outcomes. To date there are no studies investigating its effectiveness in improving outcomes for those with learning disabilities.
Cost/Student
Moderate
Designed to target
- Attention
- Emotional difficulties
- Communication
- Psychomotor skills
- Foreign language learning
Research Evidence
Like other sound-based therapies and listening programs, there is no convincing independent evidence to show that it is more effective than the control groups.
Cost/Student
Moderate/High
Designed to target
- Reading
- Spelling
Research Evidence
The Orton-Gillingham (OG) approach incorporates several evidence-based principles, including a focus on language-literacy links and the teaching of systematic synthetic phonics. There are a number of programs based on the OG aproach with varied levels of effectiveness. The efficacy of what is commonly referred to as multisensory instruction (a term that is not well-defined) is not supported by the research evidence. However, the use of dual coding (see page 23) has been shown to be a useful instructional approach.
Cost/Student
Moderate/High
Designed to target
- Reading
Research Evidence
Research indicates that any benefits seen when using the font were related to the spacing between letters rather than their shape. Wider spacing between letters may be helpful for struggling readers, but children still need to be able to read a variety of different fonts.
Cost/Student
Low
(including FAILSAFE Eating, Feingold Food Program, dietary supplements)
Designed to target
- Attention
- Reading
- Behaviour
Research Evidence
There is no evidence to support the claim that learning difficulties are caused by certain foods or ingredients.
Cost/Student
Low
Designed to target
- Attention
- Reading
- Behaviour
Research Evidence
There is no evidence to support claims that osteopathy, kinesiology or chiropractic treatments can improve learning difficulties.
Cost/Student
Moderate/High
