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:
- 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).
- 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).
- 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).
- 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).
- 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).
- 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).
- 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).
- “Explicit instruction is provided in phonology and phonological awareness, sound-symbol correspondence, syllables, morphology, syntax and semantics” (Ritchey & Goeke, 2006, 171).
- The learning is cumulative, and students are required to master or overlearn concepts, before advancing in the curriculum (Ritchey & Goeke, 2006, p. 171)
- “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).
- The instruction is “individualized to the needs of each student” (Uhry & Clark, as cited in Ritchey & Goeke, 2006, p. 172).
- “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:
- Strong Evidence of Effectiveness,
- Moderate Evidence of Effectiveness,
- Limited Evidence of Effectiveness: Strong Evidence of Modest Effects,
- Limited Evidence of Effectiveness: Weak Evidence with Notable Effects, and
- 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.
Recent Comments