12 Facts About the Orton-Gillingham Approach: Evidence Based Practices Series

12 Facts About the Orton-Gillingham Approach: Evidence Based Practices Series

by | Apr 27, 2020 | Dyslexia / Specific Disability in Reading, Evidence-Based Practices Series, Understanding Research

I was first introduced to the Orton Gillingham approach by our divisional school psychologist years ago, when she recommended “skywriting”, for a child who was struggling to remember letter names and sounds.  In skywriting, the student writes the letter in the air, while pointing and looking upwards, and visualises the letter as they write it.  Using large body movements, the student forms the letter, and says the name, and the associated sound (Gieni, personal communication, 2012).  This kind of activity, which involves multiple senses and is kinesthetic, is key to the Orton-Gillingham approach.

 

More specific directions were given to me just last year, by another school psychologist, who is also an advocate for multi-sensory learning.  She suggested having the child use two fingers, the pointer finger and middle finger, while pointing to the sky.  She further recommended that the child write the letter with their arm extended, elbow straight.  The student was to keep her eyes closed, while pointing up, and to the right, as she visualized the letter, in order to engage the part of the brain that would store the information (Betker, personal communication, 2019).

 

The psychologist further suggested some other techniques that  involved engaging multiple senses.  The child was to place  a piece of paper over top of sand paper, and then write letters with a pencil, pressing lightly onto the page.  This was to provide the student with a “muscle memory” of the shape of the letter.  Feedback from the pencil being dragged over sandpaper, would cause a sensation in her hand that would lead to better memory (Betker, personal communication, 2019).

 

Being a former Roots of Empathy teacher, I was familiar with the idea of developing the brain through engaging a child’s senses, so this made sense to me.  I gave it a try, and began to look further into this idea of using multiple pathways in the brain, in order to support learning. I began to see the influence of the Orton-Gillingham Approach in various programs and activities that I came across in my work as a resource teacher.

 

For some struggling readers at my school, who were still learning the alphabetic principle in Grade 2, the Orton-Gillingham multi-sensory approach was what finally worked, when I tried it with these students.  In my office I had found a kit, developed by the  Institute for Multi-sensory Education (1998), that was my starting point.  It included a DVD that showed how to implement the steps outlined in the manual.  Also included were some crayons, Popsicle sticks, a flat, red, plastic mat with a grid pattern, and some “house paper”.  This kit was designed for parents, and did not require specific training to use, other than viewing the DVD.  Other OG based programs that I am familiar with, including the Wilson Reading System and the Barton Reading & Spelling System, require extensive training.

 

 

I have found this approach to be useful, and have seen positive results myself, with these programs, however I want to be certain that I advocate for approaches that have the highest likelihood of resulting in a measurable, positive impact on students in our school division.  I am aware of the danger in using anecdotal comments or personal success stories to draw conclusions, even it is my own success story!  Instead, I must learn whether the approach has been proven effective, through empirical data.

 

Here are some quick facts about the Orton-Gillingham (OG) Approach:

 

  1. The Orton-Gilligham approach is not new. It was developed by a child neurologist named Dr. Samuel Orton, in the early 20th century (Ritchey &Goeke, 2006, p. 171).

 

  1. Anna Gillingham was a “gifted educator and psychologist” who “compiled and published instructional materials as early as the 1930s which provided the foundation for student instruction and teacher training in what became known as the Orton-Gillingham Approach” (Academy of Orton-Gillingham Practitioners and Educators, 2018).

 

  1. A curriculum was developed, based on Dr. Orton’s ideas, by Anna Gillingham and Bessie Stillman, and “remains the backbone of Orton-Gillingham (OG) instructional programs and other instructional programs derived from the original curriculum” (Ritchey &Goeke, 2006, p. 171).

 

  1. The OG approach was initially designed for students with Dyslexia, to remediate reading deficits, and was taught through one to one tutoring (Ring, Avrit & Black, 2017, p. 384).

 

  1. OG is called an approach, not a method because “the latter implies more rigidity in the practice than was intended. The flexibility to meet the needs of their students has since inspired practitioners to modify and adapt the instruction, and is one of the reasons why Orton Gillingham is the basis of many current published curricula” (Uhry & Clark, as cited in Ring et al., 2017, p. 396).

 

  1. Many educators in the past actually worked with Orton, Gillingham and Stillman to make adaptations to the original methodology, in order to change it to meet the needs of whole classes of students, for adult learners, and for other educational needs (Ritchey &Goeke, 2006, p. 172). Some programs that are adaptations to the original methodology, include the Wilson Reading System, Alphabet Phonics and Barton Reading and Spelling System.  Each of them involve  the instructional principles common to the original OG methodology (p. 172).

 

  1. In the Orton-Gillingham approach, there is a focus on phonics. The rules of the English language are taught directly and systematically (Ring, Avrit & Black, 2017, p.384).  OG lessons present the “units of language …introduced in a systematic sequence of increasing complexity from simple vowels and consonants through multiple syllable words” (Uhry & Clark, as cited in Ring et al., 2017, p. 384).

 

  1. “Explicit instruction is provided in phonology and phonological awareness, sound-symbol correspondence, syllables, morphology, syntax and semantics” (Ritchey & Goeke, 2006, 171).

 

  1. The learning is cumulative, and students are required to master or overlearn concepts, before advancing in the curriculum (Ritchey & Goeke, 2006, p. 171)

 

  1. “A key characteristic of OG reading instruction is that it is multisensory, involving visual, auditory, and kinesthetic/tactile learning pathways, often referred to as the Language Triangle” (Ritchey & Goeke, 2006, p. 171, italics in original).

 

  1. The instruction is “individualized to the needs of each student” (Uhry & Clark, as cited in Ritchey & Goeke, 2006, p. 172).

 

  1. “OG instruction is to be provided by trained and qualified teachers, tutors or other specialists” (Ritchey & Goeke, 2006, p. 172).

 

 

Is the Orton-Gillingham Approach Supported by High Quality, Scientific Research?

 

In reading articles on this topic, I did find two sources which concluded that the OG approach is supported by research.  One of them is a report from the Best Evidence Encyclopedia (BEE) site.  BEE is an especially reliable source.  This source was recommended by the Council for Exceptional Children journal in the article A Special Educators Guide to Successfully Implementing Evidence Based Practices (Torres, Farley & Cook, 2014) .  Bestevidence.org is “a free web site created by the Johns Hopkins University School of Education’s Center for Data-Driven Reform in Education (CDDRE)” Retrieved on April 26, 2020 from http://www.bestevidence.org/aboutbee.htm.

 

The second source was a 2017 study that tested the effectiveness of two programs, each based on the original Orton Gillingham approach.  One program, called “Take Flight”, was found to produce significant overall effects  (Ring, Avrit & Black, 2017).  Significant gains were shown across many types of reading outcomes, including comprehension, word identification, spelling and word attack skills / decoding (pp. 392-394)

 

Looking more closely at the information provided by John Hopkins University’s Best Evidence Encyclopedia, this is what I found:

 

In a summary for educators, entitled Effective Beginning Reading Programs, the Orton-Gillingham Approach was recommended. The Orton-Gillingham Approach is listed in a chart, under the heading, “Limited Evidence of Effectiveness:  Weak Evidence with Notable Effects“.

 

Now, it is not immediately apparent that a program listed in this category, with the words “limited evidence” as the heading, might be a reliable option!  However, upon studying the chart more closely, it became apparent to me how few programs actually make the cut, to be included in the BEE Effective Beginning Readings Programs chart.

 

The chart rates programs under the following five categories:

  1. Strong Evidence of Effectiveness,
  2. Moderate Evidence of Effectiveness,
  3. Limited Evidence of Effectiveness: Strong Evidence of Modest Effects,
  4. Limited Evidence of Effectiveness: Weak Evidence with Notable Effects, and
  5. No Qualifying Studies

http://www.bestevidence.org/aboutbee.htm>

 

  • Only three programs, out of almost 200 that were researched, were listed as having “Strong Evidence”.

 

  • Not one made it into the “Moderate Evidence” category.

 

  • Twelve were listed as having “Limited Evidence”.

 

  • Under “No Qualifying Studies” there were over 160 programs listed.

 

Of the  approximately 160 programs, for which there were no qualifying studies, I saw many programs well known to me, listed.  These programs are well known to many of my colleagues, and likely to you, and are widely used.  Some of the ones included in this category were those based on the OG approach, such as WRS and Barton:

  • Hooked on Phonics,
  • Wilson Reading System (WRS),
  • Seeing Stars,
  • Jolly Phonics,
  • Fundations,
  • Fountas Pinnell Units of Study,
  • Barton Reading & Spelling System

 

This does not necessarily mean that these programs are not effective.  It means that currently, there is a lack of sufficient evidence, or studies of high quality, to determine their effectiveness.  

 

The Orton Gillingham (OG) approach is well-known and widely used in schools all over Canada and the USA, however, according to many of the articles I read in learning more about OG, there is limited evidence on its effectiveness.  (Ring, Avrit & Black, 2017, p. 384 / Ritchey & Goeke, 2006, p.172 / What Works Clearinghouse, July 2010).

 

According to Ritchey & Goeke (2006), teachers’ reactions to the approach are “overwhelmingly positive”. However its use is “fuelled by anecdotal evidence and personal experience” (p. 172).   Most of the research studies carried out so far on this approach have not met the definition of scientifically-based research (p. 172).  This does not mean that the approach is ineffective.  It only means that conclusions about its effectiveness cannot yet be made, based on the information that is currently available (Institute of Education Sciences, 2010).

 

As I mentioned above, I, too, am a teacher who has personally found the approach to be effective with the students I teach.  However, my goal in this blog is to seek out programs and strategies that are supported by scientific evidence.

What can I conclude from this week’s foray into educational research? 

 

When taking the course “Diagnostic and Remedial Techniques in ELA” last winter, I couldn’t really understand why my instructor, who is a reading clinician, would often steer us away from “packaged programs”.  However, after looking closely into the BEE research summary of packaged literacy programs, I am beginning to see why the instructor was more inclined to choose certain strategies, as opposed to entire programs, for use with students.  My instructor taught us that the real strength in teaching reading is in the close observation of individual students, and applying specific strategies to match the students strengths and needs, to move them forward.

 

It is not enough to purchase a program and follow the steps.  Instead we must take a more diagnostic approach, making small adjustments, trying an approach, and noting the results.  After each lesson, it is necessary to make minute changes, to help the student learn and advance. There is nothing like a good teacher, observing, adapting and applying a variety of approaches, in the act of teaching reading to a unique individual.

 

In working with particular students it may very well be appropriate and effective to use the OG approach.  It is necessary to measure the students’ progress and to determine the effectiveness of the approach with specific individuals, using assessment data.

 

I will continue to read articles on the topic of the Orton-Gillingham approach, and will add to this summary over time.  If you know of any especially good sources of information on this topic, please comment below!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References:

 

Academy of Orton-Gillingham Practitioners and Educators (2018). Retrieved April 25, 2020, from  https://www.orton-gillingham.com/about-us/orton-gillm/.

 

Academy of Orton-Gillingham Practitioners and Educators.  (2018).  Retrieved on April 26, 2020 from https://www.ortonacademy.org/resources/what-is-the-orton-gillingham-approach.

 

Institute of Education Sciences, 2010.  Retrieved on April 25, 2020 from  https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/EvidenceSnapshot/528.

 

Johns Hopkins University School of Education’s Center for Data-Driven Reform in Education (CDDRE).  Retrieved on April 26, 2020 from http://www.bestevidence.org/aboutbee.htm.

 

Ring, J. J., Avrit, K. J., Black, J. L. (2017).  Take Flight:  The evolution of an Orton-Gillingham based curriculum.  The International Dyslexia Association, Ann. of Dyslexia,67, 383-400.

 

Ritchey, K. D., & Goeke, J. L. (2006).  Orton-Gillingham and Orton-Gillingham-based reading instruction: A review of the literature.  The Journal of Special Education, (40), 171-183.

 

Slavin, R.E., Lake, C., Chambers, B., Cheung, A., & Davis, S. (2009) Effective beginning reading programs: A best evidence synthesis. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Data-Driven Reform in Education.  Retrieved on April 25, 2020 from  http://www.bestevidence.org/reading/begin_read/begin_read.htm.

Coming Full Circle – The Oelwein Method & ABA – Evidence Based Practices Series

Coming Full Circle – The Oelwein Method & ABA – Evidence Based Practices Series

by | Apr 2, 2020 | Evidence-Based Practices Series, Reading Instruction for Students with SCD

After reading about the Oelwein method, I have to say that I have come full circle in my views about teaching reading to students with Significant Cognitive Disability (SCD), and Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD).

What I mean by that, is after reading Literacy Skill Development for Students with Special Learning Needs: A Strength Based Approach, (Brown & Oelwein, 2007), I was reminded of the teaching method I learned over 16 years ago, and had used as an Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) tutor, when I worked in the ABA program at the St. Amant Centre, here in Manitoba.  The method used in ABA, called Discrete Trial Teaching, is very similar to the Oelwein method I just read about today. 

I wonder why I did not immediately think of ABA and Discrete Trail Training when I first set out to research information about teaching reading to students with Significant Cognitive Disabilities (SCD) and Intellectual Disabilities (ID)?  It is odd, considering my very positive experience with the method, and my knowledge of the research that proves its effectiveness for people with Autism. 

 I suppose the breakdown, for me, had to do with my more recent focus on reading instruction. In the past, my experience with ABA had been teaching life-skills or self-care skills, mainly.  Also, perhaps I saw ABA and Discrete Trial Training as a method for students with Autism only.  I had forgotten that this method can be used with people with various developmental disabilities.  I had learned of its use with people other than those with Autism, at a workshop at the Council for Exceptional Children conference in 2017, where Discrete Trail Training was the focus. 

As my career has taken me towards supporting students with a large variety of abilities, in becoming readers, my repertoire of strategies has broadened, and I have moved toward other teaching methods.  However, as I said in my blog post about fluency yesterday, the method I used as an ABA tutor, is always my “go – to”, when other methods are not proving successful for the students I work with, as a resource teacher.

My pursuit, through this blog, has been to research reading interventions that work for students with SCD and ID. With this as my focus, I suppose I have not put enough stock in the “tried and true”.  After reading about the Oelwein method, I am grateful to have had the experience of working as an ABA tutor.  

Essentially what is described in the book Literacy Skill Development for Students with Special Learning Needs: A Strength Based Approach, Brown & Oelwein (2007) is very structured, intensive method.  The method, what I know as Discrete Trial Training, is applied to the task of teaching “whole words” to students (p.40).  Students are taught to read the full word, on sight, without breaking down the word into its sounds. 

Important to the Oelwein method is the “selection of vocabulary words that are immediately useful to the learner. It is critical to show students that words have a purpose and can be manipulated to have meaning” (2007, p. 78).

The Oelwein method involves engaging the learners through using their strengths (Brown & Oelwein, 2007, p. i, preface). As you are likely aware, people with ASD are strong visual learners, and so are many people with DS. The authors describe how important it is to use this visual strength to support these students in reading: “Research has found that individuals with ASD process visuospatial information more easily than transient auditory information” (Quill, as cited in Brown & Oelwein, 2007, p. 12).

Students begin by learning whole words, through a three step approach. The reasoning behind starting with whole words is that students with significant learning needs often are not successful with the phonics approach.

The authors argue that “the learning style of students with a variety of special learning needs…makes it difficult for them to read with a phonics-based approach. For these students the letter-by letter decoding of words is a labour-intensive process that can be both frustrating and discouraging (p. 12). However, the authors explain that phonics is not dismissed entirely in the Oelwein method. It is taught later that it would be for “neurotypical” learners, but it is still taught (Brown & Oelwein, 2007, p. 27).

Brown & Oelwein describe two approaches for teaching reading: the “bottom-up” approach, and the “top-down” approach (pp. 3-4). Bottom-up is beginning with letters and sounds, and advancing to whole words. Top-down is the approach used in the Oelwein method, where students are first taught whole words, and later are shown that words are made up of individual sounds.

The Oelwein method involves taking students through a three-step sequence, called the “match, select and name” sequence:

“1) Matching: the student matches word to word (or word to a word printed under a picture);
2. Selecting: the student selects a word upon request;
3. Naming: the student names the word on request, either verbally or by hand sign” (p. 14).

Essential to this method are the following points:

• The words that are used must be important and personal to the child. Teaching might begin with the child’s name, parent’s names, and a sibling or pet’s name. Later words that are connected to the child’s interests are used.

• Sight words are taught to allow the child to begin to form sentences with the words that they begin to read. I number of sentences can be formed with the student’s first four personal words, and the sight words “I” and “see”: “I see Mom. I see (name).”

• These short sentences are then transferred into books that are personalized for the child.

• Students then are supported in learning to read these books, through modelling and repeated reading, until the child achieves fluency. Before long the student has the rewarding feeling of being able to read a book!

• The method is visual and systematic (there is a sequence chart that is used to determine how many words are taught, how they are maintained, and which sight words are incorporated, and when. New books are taught as the student becomes fluent with previous books.

Most importantly, to me, the method described by Brown & Oelwein is very similar to  Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA), which, as I said earlier, is an empirically proven method for teaching students with ASD. In the Oelwein method, the adults use very clear instruction, immediate prompts, and verbal praise following correct responses, just as is the case for ABA and Discrete Trial Teaching (DTT). Here is a snapshot, in case you are not familiar with those acronyms:

“With the picture card on the table, show Abby the Abby flashcard and say, “This word says ___.” Wait for her to say or sign her name.

If she does not sign or say it, cue her by pointing to the picture; if she does not respond, tell her, “It says, Abby.”

Give her the flashcard and tell her to put Abby (flashcard) on Abby (picture card).

Provide feedback for each response (Brown & Oelwein, 2007, p. 40)

Alas! The tried and true! I feel satisfied knowing that my experiences with Applied Behavior Analysis are further substantiated here.  It gives me confidence to carry on with what I know works, while at the same time continuing to expand my repertoire of evidence-based reading strategies.

It is also very valuable to see how the basics I had been familiar with, can be applied in teaching reading to students with special needs.

The method supports learners with SCD, ASD and DS in developing new literacy skills quickly, and allows students to feel the joy in reading books very early on in the process.

After reading the book by Oelwein & Brown (2007), I now have some answers to the numerous questions that I was left with, in my post about fluency yesterday. I am confident that building automaticity of whole words must come before repeated readings of passages. Also, I am convinced that applying the “top-down” method, which leaves phonics to later in the learning process, is a very smart idea, for students with severe developmental disabilities, ASD and SCD.

That being said, considering the needs of individual learners, and what is currently working for them or not working, would impact my decision on how to approach teaching them, but this is good information to have at the ready!

What is left, for me, is to try this out on my own, with students I work with each day. I might have to wait a bit to try it out, considering schools are still closed here, due to the pandemic.

I encourage you to give it a try yourself, once we get back to school, and let me know what you find.

I will end with a quote that sums up the philosophy of this approach perfectly, and I feel is an apt statement about teaching students of all abilities:

“Do not persist with a longer, harder and louder approach if the student is not meeting with success in a reasonable time frame ” (Brown & Oelwein, 2007, p. 12).

I am grateful for having been referred to this book, and would love to share it with you. You can read part of this book yourself for free, by going to the link below, and clicking on “Preview this book”.

https://books.google.ca/books/about/Literacy_Skill_Development_for_Students.html?id=LdmVLfuChU4C&redir_esc=y

Thanks Ailsa, for the advice to check out the Oelwein method!

 

References

Brown, L. T. & Oelwein, P. (2007). Literacy Skill Development for Students with Special Learning Needs: A Strength Based Approach. National Professional Resources Inc./Dude Publishing.

Martin, G. & Pear, J. (2003).  Behavior Modification:  What it is and how to do it.  7th Ed.  Prentice Hall.

 

Fluency Instruction for Students with Severe Autism and SCD – Evidence-Based Practices Series

Fluency Instruction for Students with Severe Autism and SCD – Evidence-Based Practices Series

by | Apr 1, 2020 | Evidence-Based Practices Series, Reading Instruction for Students with SCD







Melekoglu (2019) in the article, Evidence-Based Fluency Interventions for Elementary Students with Learning Disabilities, states that it is especially helpful to teach fluency in the early years:  “Fluency instruction should start in the early grades because researchers have repeatedly shown that students between first and third grade benefit most from explicit and systematic fluency instruction” (p. 411).  








He goes on to say that fluency interventions are especially important for students with Learning Disabilities:  “the academic gap between good readers and struggling readers rapidly gets wider, even in the first grade.  Therefore, teachers should utilize effective fluency interventions as early as possible to keep students with LD on track” (p. 414).


 


Melekoglu sees fluency as encompassing not only word recognition, but phonics skills, too.  Automatic, or fluent recall of letter-sound associations might also be part of the fluency interventions this author is referring to.  


He states: “To become fluent readers, students with LD first need to master phonological awareness and phonics skills in first grade (Speece & Ritchey, as cited in Melekoglu, 2019, p. 415.)


 


Using repeated readings to teach fluency is something that I am very familiar with.  I have used Precision Reading (Freeze, 2002 / 2010) for a number of years, and know it to be effective in  increasing the speed at which students can read, and the number of words they can read with automaticity.  I also have seen how it supports struggling students in building confidence in themselves as readers. 








In the Precision Reading “core strategy”, designed by Dr. Freeze, students read passages of 100-300 words in length, over and over again, for up to ten days (Freeze, 2002, p. 65).  By the end of the 10 days, the number of words they can read in one minute’s time has often doubled.   This method of teaching fluency, through repeated readings of passages, is evidence-based (Melekoglu (2019); Freeze (2002/2010).


 


Freeze (2002 / 2010) does, however, list characteristics of students who are likely to not benefit from this intervention, and includes students who have intellectual disabilities (ID) in this list. 


This brings me back one of my original goals in writing this blog, and carrying out reading research:  Is it true, that interventions meant for struggling readers would be effective for those with ID or Significant Cognitive Disabilities (SCD), or not?


 


Much of the research that I have done up to this point has indicated that there is no need to use alternate methods for teaching reading to students with ID or SCD, and that the interventions used for struggling readers without disabilities would work for those with disabilities.  See my post entitled “Essential Features of Reading Interventions for Students with ID or SCD” (Busch, March 8, 2020). 








I see that fluency of word recognition, as well as quick, automatic application of sound-symbol relationships is key to becoming a capable reader.  I also see that whether the student has a disability or not, this must be true.  However, I am left asking whether these evidence-based methods, designed for struggling readers and those with LD, could be effective with those who have SCD. 










Melekoglu (2019) provides three “effective teaching methods” for fluency instruction: 


1) Using a model, either  a person reading in front of the student, or a recording of them reading, so that they can hear what fluent reading sounds like, 




2) Having the student read the same passage over and over again, and




3) Giving specific feedback immediately to students , while listening to them reading.  (p. 415).










When I think about the students I have worked with, with diagnoses of severe Autism and / or SCD, I question the conclusion that the regular reading interventions, such as these methods vouched for by Melekoglu, would suffice, for very low functioning learners. 


When trying these types of interventions with learners who have severe Autism or SCD myself, I did not see noticeable results.










In fact, I often encountered difficulties with rigidity and stereotypy that interfered with the students’ progress, when using repeated readings or phonics methods.  The students’ challenges with memory and attention interfered, as well. 










Each time I was reminded of the need for a much more intensive, systematic intervention, and the use of positive reinforcement and extinction, to support these students in learning new skills, including reading skills.










I eventually turned to Discrete Trial Teaching, each time I encountered these difficulties in the past. 


Discrete Trial Teaching is a method I had learned as an Applied Behavior Analysis tutor, before I became a resource teacher.  This method, based in behavioral psychology, has always been my tried and true method, when other interventions fail. 




 


Perhaps the distinction I am getting to here, lies in the severity of the student’s disability, when it comes to reading interventions.  A person with an IQ in the borderline range may benefit from similar interventions as those used with typically developing struggling readers, but what about students with IQ scores in the 50 – 55 range?










One of my colleagues referred me to the Oelwein Approach, and that is where I will look next.  It appears to be a method designed to teach reading to students with Severe Cognitive Disability and/or Down Syndrome.


 


I will get back to you on what I have learned in a few days.  In the mean time, I would like to invite you to comment on the questions below, and to share your experiences with teaching students with severe Autism, Down Sydrome or SCD.


 


Have you ever used the Oelwein Method?  If so, what are your impressions?  Did you see progress with your students with very Significant Cognitive Disability?


 


Do you believe that phonics should be taught before we use the “repeated readings” method with learners? 


 


Or should both skills be taught at the same time? 










Or, as Dr. Freeze suggests, should phonics instruction be excluded from reading instruction, and the focus be on full word memorization, instead (2002/2010)?


 


As I am sure you will agree, it is difficult to draw conclusions from so many different perspectives.  Often I have found contradictory information on reading instruction, even when both sources are reliable, and well-founded. 












Additionally, sometimes my own experiences tell me that something is missing, and it is necessary to keep reading and researching.  










I will now sign off, with more questions than I had at the outset!  The research continues!


 


References: 


 


Freeze. R.  (2002 / 2010). Precision Reading:  Instructors’ Handbook (2nd Edition).  D. R. Freeze Educational Publications.


 


Melkoglu, M. A. (2019).  Evidence based fluency interventions for elementary students with learning disabilities.  European Journal of Education Studies, 6 (5), 411-423.