Comparison of the Orton-Gillingham and a Web-Based Program
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Research Article iMedPub Journals Journal of Childhood & Developmental Disorders 2017 http://www.imedpub.com ISSN 2472-1786 Vol. 3 No. 3: 12 DOI: 10.4172/2472-1786.100050 Comparison of the Orton-Gillingham Tzipi Horowitz-Kraus1,2, 2 and a Web-based Program in Catherine Buck , Resmi Gutpa3 and Children with Reading Difficulties Rhonda Brown4 1 Educational Neuroimaging Center, Faculty of Education in Science and Abstract Technology, Technion, Haifa, Israel The Orton-Gillingham reading-intervention program (OG) is widely used for 2 Reading and Literacy Discovery Center, children with Reading Difficulties (RD). However, few studies have been performed Division of General and Community to evaluate the effectiveness of the OG. Here, we examined the effects of the OG Pediatrics on oral and silent reading in children with RD. Children with RD who participated in 3 Department of Biostatistics, Cincinnati the OG showed similar improvements in speed and accuracy of oral reading after Children's Hospital Medical Center, training as did children with RD who participated in the control program. Both Cincinnati, Ohio, United States groups showed improvement in oral reading speed. Children in the OG group did 4 Faculty of Education, University of show greater accuracy in oral reading compared to silent reading. These results Cincinnati, Ohio, USA suggest that the gain from the OG was not different from participation in another intervention program in improving oral and silent reading speed. Keywords: Reading Difficulties (RD); Orton-Gillingham reading; Anecdotal Corresponding author: Tzipi Horowitz-Kraus [email protected] Received: June 19, 2017; Accepted: June 21, 2017; Published: June 30, 2017 Alon fellow and Career Advanced Chair of the Educational Neuroimaging Center, Introduction Faculty of Education in Sciences and Technology, Technion- Israel Institute of The Orton-Gillingham reading intervention program (OG) was Technology, Israel. designed in the 1930s by Samuel Orton and Anna Gillingham to develop oral and silent reading skills in children with Reading Tel: +972-4-829-2165 Difficulties (RD) [1]. This program and programs based on its principles approach intervention as a “systematic, sequential, multisensory, synthetic and phonics-based approach to teaching Citation: Horowitz-Kraus T, Buck C, Gutpa R, reading” [2]. At the most basic level, the OG approach utilizes et al. Comparison of the Orton-Gillingham the language triangle - visual, auditory, and kinesthetic/tactile and a Web-based Program in Children with pathways [2]. Phonology, as well as phonological awareness, Reading Difficulties. J Child Dev Disord. is taught to children with RD using a ladder of reading skills; 2017, 3:3. starting with groups of letters and moving on to how sounds correspond to each other and blend to form words. Students learn to read and spell both actual and nonsense words, first with based on it are predominately used in schools [3]. However, tiles and then on paper. Children progress to reading and writing despite half a century of widespread use in schools, very little phrases. Reading fluency and accuracy is then targeted using empirical evidence exists supporting the use of the OG [4]. Less program texts. The instructor dictates a word, which the child scientifically-based information is available for the OG compared then repeats, spells with blocks while saying it, taps out vowel to other programs. sounds, says the word slowly emphasizing phonological parts of the word, blends the sounds present in the word, says it with the Evidence of the effects of the OG in children correct speed, and then uses finger spelling [2]. This multisensory The main body of evidence supporting the OG method has been approach has been shown to be particularly useful for children anecdotal [3]. Success stories from parents and teachers, as well with RD [3]. Due to its initial success at a time when few programs as widespread support of the program from schools has instilled were available in schools, as well as based on anecdotal evidence confidence in educators and legislators regarding continued of the results of this program, the OG method and programs implementation of the OG [3]. However, there is little empirical © Under License of Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License | Find this article in: http://childhood-developmental-disorders.imedpub.com/archive.php 1 Journal of Childhood & DevelopmentalARCHIVOS DE Disorders MEDICINA 2017 ISSNISSN 2472-1786 1698-9465 Vol. 3 No. 3 : 12 evidence supporting the superiority of this program over other personnel devoted toward this method, as well as the significant reading-intervention programs. The studies that do exist have portion of students who struggle with RD, the goal of the current inconsistent findings regarding the effects of the OG on reading study was to determine the effects of OG training in children skills in children with RD [2]. Among the studies showing slight with RD compared to an age-matched group of children with RD improvements using the OG method, Geiss et al. demonstrated who participated in a web-based reading intervention program greater improvement in reading rate in 13-18 year-old children for the same time and intensity on both oral and silent reading in juvenile detention facilities who underwent the OG for 90 skills. We hypothesized that children who participated in the OG min a day, five days a week, and were tested before and after and children who participated in the web-based intervention in intervention [2]. However, including children in juvenile detention school would demonstrate reading improvement (i.e., reading facilities resulted in incomplete post-testing data. Another speed, accuracy and comprehension). We also hypothesized that study showed that an OG-based program (“The Wilson Reading no differences in gains in reading skills would be found between System”) was more effective in teaching reading, spelling, and the two groups. We speculated that greater gains in oral reading phonological awareness skills than was a non-phonetic program would occur in both groups due to the intensive oral-reading for the comparison group [5]. However, other researchers have practice involved in both interventions. found conflicting results. A study comparing another OG-based program (“Alphabet Phonics”) and a non-OG approach focusing Methods on comprehension skills, reading efficiency skills, study skills, and test-taking strategies showed that students who were normal Participants readers enrolled in a community college had better performance Ninety-seven elementary and middle school students in 1st on post-training measures after the non-OG approach than through 7th grades (6-12 years of age) from a private school in an students in the OG-based group [6]. The authors concluded that urban Midwestern state participated in the study (n=58 females; OG-based programs must be evaluated more completely and n=39 males). Sixty-three students (n=40 females; n=23 males) empirically to determine efficacy. participated in the OG (“OG group”) and 34 students (n=18 females; n=16 males) participated in the web-based program Another challenge of using the OG is that it indiscriminately (“WB group”), which was the ongoing intervention program in covers all domains in reading [7]. Morris and colleagues identified the school. “subtypes” of children with reading difficulties (RD), such that some children experience difficulties with fluency, reading Students participated in either program for three months and comprehension, or phonological processing [7]. Thus, differential completed accuracy and speed reading measures for both oral attention may need to be given to each of these reading domains and silent reading before (Test 1; in the fall) and after (Test 2; [7]. Spending precious time on all domains of reading for all in the winter) intervention. The children were classified as children instead of targeting specific skills for individual children experiencing RD by the school by scoring at or below the 25th may cause additional delays in reading improvement. percentile on tests for oral and silent reading speed (i.e., fluency), reading comprehension, and oral and silent reading accuracy OG-based programs are used widely in schools across the United (i.e., decoding and orthographical skills, respectively) using States and internationally [8]. Such programs are intensive and the AimsWeb reading-assessment program (https://aimsweb. costly interventions, requiring both the financial and personnel pearson.com/) [9]. resources to provide one-on-one training daily for children with RD. Parents often request OG-based programs for their children Reading measures and have won lawsuits against school districts for the right to To assess the effects of both interventions implemented have this method available under the Individuals with Disabilities in this study, we used the AimsWeb Reading Curriculum- Education Act or IDEA [3]. However, there is a distinct lack of Based Measurement (R-CBM), which is a brief, individually empirical evidence supporting the efficacy of the OG method, administered, standardized test of speed and accuracy of oral particularly in comparison to the myriad of daily intervention reading for grades 1 through 12 [10]. More specifically, the programs available. Most supporters of the OG, including many R-CBM uses 1-min probes that require students to read aloud parents of children with RD, base their opinions on word-of-mouth to a test administrator. The number of Words Read Correctly