Orton-Gillingham: There is No Research-Based Evidence

This is an excerpt from my book, Johnson, A. (2021). Designing meaning-based interventions for reading. Guildford Press.

?

Dear Dr. Johnson,

I have a K-12 reading license and was considering joining the Orton-Gillingham course that costs over $2000 and is full for the summer at the Reading Center in [deleted]. Is it beneficial? ?Please let me know. I applied for admission and a scholarship and I am on the waiting list.

?

The International Dyslexia Association

In Minnesota where I live, and in many other states, representatives from the International Dyslexia Association (IDA) have lobbied state legislatures to mandate a certain type of reading instruction for students with dyslexia.? These mandates prohibit teachers from using their research-based knowledge, expertise, and understanding of the individual readers with whom they work.? Instead, they are forced to implement a certain type of instruction for students who are severely struggling readers.? Could you imagine if similar mandates were imposed on doctors, therapists, lawyers, dentists, and other professional practitioners?? If you had gallbladder problems, would you feel comfortable if your doctor was forced to use a certain type of treatment because the International GallBladder Association (IGBA) had lobbied your state legislature???

?According to the International Dyslexia Association, the answer for all reading problems is Orton-Gillingham or something similar.? Orton-Gillingham is an approach to teaching reading that uses instruction that is “multisensory, sequential, incremental, cumulative, individualized, phonics-based, and explicit” (Rippel, 2020).? The Orton-Gillingham website says that the approach is “direct, explicit, multi-sensory, structured, sequential, diagnostic, and prescriptive” (see Figure 1).? If effectiveness were determined by the number of adjectives used to describe it, then Orton-Gillingham would indeed be one of the most effective programs you could buy.

?

Figure 1. Orton-Gillingham as described by Orton-Gillingham.

https://www.ortonacademy.org/resources/what-is-the-orton-gillingham-approach/

?

Buy is the operative word here.? An individual Orton-Gillingham course costs over $2,000 and associate level training costs $4,000 plus $250 for materials.? Various levels of training and certification can be purchased.? What you get for your money is an expensive, Humpty-Dumptian approach to reading instruction where children are taught a specified list of reading subskills in a predetermined order and in a specified way (see Figure 2).? In other words, the complex act of reading is broken into teeny tiny pieces so that a highly trained Orton-Gillingham specialist can help children put the teeny tiny pieces back together again one teeny tiny piece at a time.? And the Orton-Gillingham magic ingredient is “multisensory” instruction.? This means it uses visual, auditory, and kinesthetic modalities when teaching.? In other words, as children are learning, they see things, hear things, and do things.

Figure 2. Basic scope and sequence using an O-G approach.

This is called multimodal instruction.? It’s nothing new or magical.? Elementary teachers have been using it for years.? However, an effective meaning-based approach to reading instruction is even more multimodal in its multimodality. ??I call it meta-multimodal instruction.? It includes imagination, emotion, and social interaction as well as visual, auditory, and kinesthetic modalities.? So effective meaning-based reading instruction would have children see things, hear things, do things, imagine things, emote things, and say things.? There you go.? Meta-multimodal instruction.? And I did not charge you $4,000 plus $250 for materials.

What about the research that “proves” the effectiveness of Orton-Gillingham?? Besides some of the methodological problems described in Chapter 23, the research used to support the use of Orton-Gillingham often measures students’ progress using pseudo-reading or nonreading tasks (Lim & Oei, 2015), uses measures of questionable validity (Hill, 2005), does not use a comparison group (Bas, 2008) is derived from unpublished master’s or doctoral theses (Blockinger, 2004), is a study as opposed to peer-reviewed research put out by groups or organizations that have a vested interest in a certain outcome (Arndt, 2006) or makes claims of superiority without controlling for covariates such as gender, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, verbal IQ, or initial skills (Ritchey & Goeke, 2006).? Despite the claims of being heavily research-based, it is simply not (Compton, et. al., 2014; ILAa, 2016; ILAb, 2016; Layton, 2017; Ritchey & Goeke, 2006; Stahl, 1998).

?

The ILA and NCTE

The International Literacy Association (ILA) and the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) are two professional organizations that I generally turn to when seeking a research-based perspective on literacy learning and instruction.? These nonprofit organizations have been around for over 60 and 100 years respectively and include thousands of researchers, scholars, teachers, and other educators with a variety of theoretical perspectives but with the single goal of enhancing literacy instruction through research and professional development (as opposed to generating profit).? You can trust that positions statements put out by these organizations have been vetted and are based on solid, peer-review research.? Also, books, journals and other publications have been reviewed by reviewers with solid literacy-based credentials.?? Just as the American Medical Association (AMA) and the National Academy of Medicine (NAM) and their related professional journals are the guideposts in the medical field, the ILA and NCTE are the two professional organizations that are best positioned to provide an objective, research-based perspective on literacy learning and instruction based on a wide variety of research from a wide variety of fields.?

Regarding Orton-Gillingham approaches used with students with dyslexia, the International Literacy Association wrote,

?“As yet, there is no certifiably best method for teaching children who experience reading difficulty (Mathes et al., 2005). For instance, research does not support the common belief that Orton-Gillingham–based approaches are necessary for students classified as dyslexic (Ritchey & Goeke, 2007; Turner, 2008; Vaughn & Linan-Thompson, 2003). Reviews of research focusing solely on decoding interventions have shown either small to moderate or variable effects that rarely persist over time, and little to no effects on more global reading skills. Rather, students classified as dyslexic have varying strengths and challenges, and teaching them is too complex a task for a scripted, one-size-fits-all program (Coyne et al., 2013; Phillips & Smith, 1997; Simmons, 2015). Optimal instruction calls for teachers’ professional expertise and responsiveness, and for the freedom to act on the basis of that professionalism” (ILAa, 2016, p. 3).

Algorithmic Solutions

To be fair, there are aspects of Orton-Gillingham that work for some students for some aspects of their reading instruction.? One teacher with whom I work has been very successful in individual tutoring sessions using parts of Orton-Gillingham; however, she selectively adopts and adapts specific parts as needed for individual students and she incorporates many of the meaning-based strategies described in this book.

The problem with Orton-Gillingham and similar for-profit programs (Lindamood, Wilson Language Training, Barton System, etc.) is that they try to reduce teaching to an algorithm.? An algorithm is a formula for solving problems in which you follow a step-by-step set of procedures in order to achieve a specific outcome.? In other words, by correctly following a prescribed set of steps in the specified order, you will be led to a predefined solution.? Algorithms are useful in mathematics and computer science for calculation, data processing, and automatic reasoning.? For teaching struggling readers?? Not so much.

However, Orton-Gillingham and the State of Minnesota would have you believe that if the teaching algorithm is followed explicitly, the teacher can be assured that students will learn to read.? And if the algorithm does not work, you run them through the algorithm again … and again … and again.? What these algorithmic programs offer is a false sense of certainty.? Despite all the certainty thrown about, research to support the long-term effectiveness of these “direct, explicit, multi-sensory, structured, sequential, diagnostic, and prescriptive” interventions in improving struggling readers’ ability to create meaning with print is simply not evident (Compton, et. al., 2014).

Don't show me data. Show me one legitimate peer-reviewed research study published in academic journals supporting the effectiveness of Orton-Gillingham. Not data, but research.

?

YouTube Videos

What is Structured Literacy

Understanding Scientifically Based Reading Research

Mega-Multisensory Reading Instruction

REFERENCES

Arndt, E. J. (2006). Orton-Gillingham approach. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Center for Reading Research.

Bas, O. (2008). Teaching literacy with a multisensory approach to a dyslexic child who has hearing difficulty and attention deficit disorder (ADD): A case study. Cagdas Egitim Dergisi, (351), 21–27

Blockinger, K. L. (2004). The impact of daily Orton-Gillingham drill on reading skills. Unpublished master’s thesis, Gratz College, Melrose Park, PA

Compton, D., Miller, A., Elleman, A., & Steacy, L. (2014).? Have we forsaken reading theory in the name of “quick fix” interventions for children with reading disability?? Scientific Studies of Reading, 18, 55-73.? DOI: 10.1080/10888438.2013.836200

Hill, V. (2005). Through the past darkly: A review of the British Ability Scales Second Edition. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 10, 87-98.

International Literacy Association. (2016a). Dyslexia [Research advisory]. Newark, DE: Author.? www.literacyworldwide.org

International Literacy Association. (2016b). Dyslexia: A response to the International Dyslexia Association [Research Advisory Addendum]. Newark, DE: Author. www.literacyworldwide.org

Layton, K. (2017, November 2-4). Divided or different professional communities? The politics of dyslexia in higher education, state departments of education, and public schools [paper presentation].? Association of Literacy Educators and Researchers, 62nd Annual Conference.? St. Petersburg, FL

Lim, L. & Oei, A.C. (2015). Reading and spelling gains following one year of Orton-Gillingham intervention in Singaporean students with dyslexia.? British Journal of Special Education, 42.? 374-389.

Rippel, M. (2020). The Orton-Gillingham Approach to reading and spelling. Eagle River, WI: All About??Learning Press, Inc.

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.

Stahl, S. (1998). Teaching children with reading problems to decode: Phonics and “not-phonics” instruction. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 14.? 165-188.? DOI: 10/1080/1057356980140203

?