Critical Review: Examining the Effectiveness of the Orton-Gillingham Reading Approach for Poor Readers in Elementary School John, N M.Cl.Sc (SLP) Candidate University of Western Ontario: School of Communication Sciences and Disorders

This critical review examines the ability of the Orton Gillingham (OG) approach for teaching reading skills to poor readers in elementary school. A literature search was conducted and study designs included seven quasi-experimental studies and one systematic review. Findings indicate positive results for word reading, word attack/decoding, spelling and comprehension.

Introduction instructional reading approach, which continues to be the backbone of the OG Recent estimates of reading disabilities approach today. in the United States range from 5-12% (Monsen, 2004). It has long been Objectives recognized that when classroom instruction is not effective or is The purpose of this paper is to critically insufficient, a high percentage of school- examine the existing literature regarding age students do not acquire literacy skills the effectiveness of the Orton- (Carroll, 1963). Further, poor Gillingham instructional approach to instruction in early elementary years has teaching reading to poor readers in a more direct impact on reading than in elementary school. The paper will seek the later years and therefore, poor to identify if the OG approach is readers need high quality reading effective and/or superior to other intervention in the early year of school approaches in teaching reading to poor (Joshi et al., 2002) readers. Evidenced-based recommendations and future research Samuel Orton, considered a pioneer in directions will be discussed. the developing principles of reading remediation beginning in the 1920s, Methods posited that an instructional approach for reading should “attempt to capitalize on Search Strategy their students’ auditory competence by Online database Proquest Education, teaching them the phonetic equivalence Google Scholar, PubMed, and CINHAL of the printed letters and the process of were searched using the search terms blending sequences of such equivalents (Orton-Gillingham) AND (reading) so that they might be able to produce for AND (instruction) AND (review). A themselves the spoken form of the word systematic review was found and the from its graphic counterparts” (as cited studies looking at elementary school in Ritchey & Goeke, 2006). Anna students were found. Gillingham created a curriculum by Selection Criteria which to teach Orton’s approach in The search was limited to studies that 1960, named the Orton-Gillingham (OG) examined to OG approach’s effectiveness to teaching reading in the control group who used the basal English-speaking elementary school reading instruction for the year. At the end students with reading problems only. of the school year each student was Data Collection assessed using the Metropolitan The results from the literature search Achievement Tests (MAT) and the Gates generated one systematic review and MacGinitie (GM) Reading Test. The from there seven quasi-experimental outcome measures examined increases in studies were found. All studies word knowledge, word analysis, compared the OG approach with one or comprehension, and total reading score on more other approaches to teaching the MAT and in vocabulary and reading. comprehension on the GM for both the experimental and control groups. Standard Results scores were used to calculate “t” for the first year of the study and the raw score was Of the seven studies included in this used for the last two years. Then “t” test review, two found that the OG approach on analyses were completed to compare treatment was more effective than the differences in the experimental and control control in all measures, four found the OG groups on the MAT and GM tests for approach was more effective than the assessing achievement in reading. The control in at least one, but not all measures, analysis determined that the OG approach and one study found no differences between was significantly superior to the basal interventions. reading approach on all subtests. The strengths in this study include having a The two studies that found the OG based matched control group, and completing this approach to be more effective on all study with 3 separate cohorts. Limitations measures than the control intervention include effects of the experimental teachers, approach are by Litcher & Roberge (1979) only comparing the OG approach to one and by Joshi et al. (2002). other method, and having an arbitrary Litcher & Roberge (1979) used a quasi- screening procedure. The authors provided experimental design to compare the fitting statistical analysis through effectiveness of OG instruction to a appropriate measurement techniques and controlled reading instruction of first grade description of procedures. Therefore, this children at risk for reading problems. This study provides persuasive evidence that the study was conducted over a 3-year period OG approach is beneficial in teaching in grade one classrooms, screening 600 reading to students at risk for reading children and identifying 20 students for problems. each of the 3 years. The screening procedure was employed in order to find Joshi et al. (2002) used a quasi- students who were only at risk for reading experimental design to compare the problems, eliminating effects from other Language Basics (OG) instruction to the variables. A student in the control group Houghton Mifflin reading program in first matched each of the 20 students in the grade general education classrooms. Two experimental group each year. The classrooms were taught with OG instruction experimental group was taught the OG and two classrooms at another school were reading and language instruction for three taught with Houghton Mifflin. Thirty-two hours a day for the year and compared to students made up the control group and 24 students made up the treatment group. All evidence that the OG approach is beneficial students had standard covariates (e.g., SES, in teaching reading to average grade one age). Children with below average IQ, students. uncorrected vision or hearing problems, those who had repeated a grade, and Four studies, by Stoner (1991), Foorman et students with cognitive impairments were al. (1997), Oakland et al. (1998), and Hook excluded from the study. et al. (2001) found that the OG approach to All students were assessed at the beginning teaching reading was more effective in at of the year for initial levels of phonological least one, but not all measures when awareness, decoding, and reading compared to the control intervention comprehension using the Comprehension approaches. subtest from the Gates MacGinitie Reading Test (GMRT), the Word Attack subtest Stoner (1991) used a quasi-experimental from the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test- design to compare the effectiveness of Revised (WRMT-R), and the Test of Project Read (OG) to the previous year’s Phonological Awareness (TOPA). The cohort of students who were taught with the teachers in the treatment group received 42 traditional basal reading instruction for hours of OG training and teachers in both students in grades one to three. All treatment and control groups were observed students in grades one, two, and three from teaching once a week. Instruction was a school district who were believed to be at given 50 minutes a day for all groups for risk for reading problems as judged by the the year. The students were assessed at the school teacher, formed the population from end of the year with the same tests which the groups were formed. The previously used at the beginning, but the teachers, who had received training from a alternate test forms were used. Project Read teacher, taught the students in Analysis was completed using a repeated their regular classrooms. measures multivariate analysis of variance. A “recurrent institutional cycle design” was The study showed that the gains of the utilized to allow for comparison of the OG treatment group were significantly higher group to the previous year’s cohorts who than the control group. However, the were taught with basal reading instruction. control group also showed significant The students were assessed using subtests improvements in comprehension measures, from the Stanford Achievement Test. The but not phonological awareness or decoding outcome measures were examining measures. Strengths in this paper include increases in word study, word reading, having a control group and measuring pre comprehension, and total reading score for and post intervention with the same tests, both OG and traditional basal reading but different, equivalent test forms. Some groups. limitations of this study are that it only Data was analyzed for the full study and utilized grade one students, had a low also for a portion of the study controlling number of subjects, and since the study was for teacher variables. Multivariate analysis done in a natural setting, matching of variance, Tukey HSD, analysis of variables between groups was difficult. The variance, and effect sizes were utilized to authors provided fitting statistical analysis examine the differences between the through appropriate measurement groups. The study showed significant techniques and description of procedures. differences on all subtests for the grade one Therefore this study provides persuasive class, but not for grades two or three. The strengths in this study include having a measuring phonemic awareness, word control group, using three grades of reading, and orthographic processing. students, and measuring possible effects of An individual growth curve methodology the teacher variable. The limitations include was used to measure progress for the in- that there was only enough at risk students year assessments. in one grade level to support MANOVA The phonological processing measures findings, in the first year of implementation showed that, when controlling for age, no significant differences were found, and students in the OG intervention that the treatment group of second grade outperformed both of the other students were significantly older than the interventions significantly. However, when control group. The authors provided fitting controlling for factors such as statistical analysis through appropriate socioeconomic status, gender, ethnicity, measurement techniques and description of and verbal IQ, the OG group and the procedures. This study provides persuasive analytic phonics groups no longer differed evidence that the OG approach to teaching but the OG group still significantly reading shows benefits for grade one outperformed the sight word group. For the students at risk for reading problems. orthographic and word reading measures older students outperformed younger Foorman et al. (1997) used a quasi- students. The OG group scored experimental design to compare the significantly higher than the analytic effectiveness of Alphabetic Phonics (OG) phonics group, but not the sight word group to a sight word program and an analytic in orthographic processing. The OG group phonics program with grade two and three scored significantly higher than both other students who had a reading disability. groups in word reading. However, when Participants were chosen from 13 of 19 controlling covariates the three groups schools in a school district. The Basic showed no differences for orthographic Reading Cluster subtest of the Woodcock- processing or word reading. Johnson Psycho-educational Battery- Finally, the three groups were controlled Revised (WJ-R) was given to the students for initial level of phonological processing and those who scored less than or equal to and orthographic processing and found the 25th percentile were included in the there to be no significant effects of study. Students with learning disabilities treatment for word reading. The strengths were excluded from the study and those in this study include having three with a reading disability only were intervention groups, completing analysis included. Interventions occurred in the with and without controlling for covariates, resource room daily for a two-hour block in including students in the study who only 14 classrooms with approximately 8 had a reading problem, and only analyzing students in each class (114 students total) the students who stayed in the study for the school year and taught by special throughout the year. Limitations include education teachers. significantly higher IQ levels of the Students were assessed at baseline with the students in the synthetic (OG) group, half WJ-R decoding subtest and the end of the of the students in the synthetic (OG) group year with the WJ-R and the WISC-R. being from affluent areas, and the inability Assessments occurred four times to randomize the intervention groups. The throughout the school year and consisted of authors provided fitting statistical analysis through appropriate measurement techniques and description of procedures. The FFW group used 5 of 7 computer This study provides evidence that the OG games five days a week for two hours per approach proved to be beneficial for day until they reached a set criterion of improving phonological processing, but not 90% on 5 out of 7 games. It took the significantly more so than the analytic students between 22 and 44 days to reach phonics group. this criterion. The OG group was taught one-to-one, one hour a day, five days a Oakland et al. (1998) used a quasi- week, for five months. experimental design to compare Four assessments were completed: before effectiveness of the Alphabetic Phonics and after the intervention, once at the end (OG) instruction to a control group. of the academic year, and lastly a year later. Students in both groups received instruction The authors were looking for gains in in a resource classroom via a teacher or phonemic awareness, word attack, and video-directed instruction for one hour a word identification. The assessment tests day, five days a week, for two years. The used were the Lindamood Auditory study found that students receiving the OG Conceptualization Test (LAC), used to instruction, via teacher or video-directed, measure phonemic awareness, the Test of significantly outperformed the control Language Development (TOLD), used to group in measures of comprehension, measure expressive and receptive language, spelling, word reading, and decoding mono the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test- and polysyllabic words. A strength of this Revised, used to measure reading, the Test study was using both teacher and video- of Written Spelling-3 (TWS-3), used to directed instruction for both the measure spelling, the Rapid Automatic experimental and control groups. Naming and Rapid Alternating Stimulus test, used to measure rapid naming, and the Hook et al. (2001) used a quasi- Woodcock Johnson Test of Cognitive experimental design to compare the Abilities, used to measure working effectiveness of the Fast ForWord (FFW), memory. A repeated measure ANOVA was computer based program to the OG used to analyze the data. The FFW group instruction to students 7-12 years old who was assessed with the full battery of tests attend a summer program. Sending out while the OG group was only analyzed with flyers to recruit children with a reading part of the battery. problem exclusively for a summer program The authors found that both groups made created the Fast ForWord group. The group significant gains in phonemic awareness, was made of eleven children who scored only the OG group made significant gains below the 16th percentile on word attack in word attack, and neither groups made and/or word identification subtests of the significant gains in word identification. The Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised strengths in this study include investigating and only had problems reading without the two groups both after the study and then other covariates present. This group was a year after the study was completed to matched with students from a summer determine the long-term effects of the school for children who had reading interventions and having a control group. problems and these eleven students formed The limitations include having a small the control group and were taught using the sample of students. The authors provided OG instruction. fitting statistical analysis through appropriate measurement techniques and description of procedures. This study word attack/decoding, spelling and provides persuasive evidence that the OG comprehension in various populations approach proved to be beneficial for and settings. For those beginning to read improving phonemic awareness and word and those in elementary school, positive attack. results were seen in general education classrooms and clinical settings. One study by Westrich-Bond (1993) found However, all reading measures were not no statistical significant differences on any shown to improve with the OG measures between the OG approach to approach, not all positive effects were in teaching reading and the control favour of the OG approach, or solely the intervention approach. OG approach, and some studies did not find statistically significant improvement Westrich-Bond (1993) used a quasi- for either instructional approach. For experimental design to compare the example, the study by Westrich-Bond effectiveness of the OG instruction for (1993) determined that neither teaching reading to the basal reading instructional approach showed instruction to students, ages 6-12 with significant differences; whereas a study learning disabilities that were in a special by Litcher & Roberge (1979) found that classroom. Four groups 1) resource room the OG approach for teaching reading with OG 2) resource room with basal had significantly positive effects for all reading 3) self-contained room and OG and measures. 4) self-contained room and basal reading The National Reading Panel received reading instruction for four (2000) reported that vocabulary and sessions a week. The subtests Word fluency were two of the five essential Identification and Word Attack from the tools for reading but each was only used Woodcock Reading Mastery Test were as measures in one study. This is administered pre and post. Significant important to note since the OG approach changes in scores were found for both to teaching reading does not explicitly groups, but one was not significantly better teach vocabulary or fluency skills in than the other. This article was not their instruction. It is possible that the published and methods of analysis are not OG approach will have to build these available for the systematic review. tools into their instruction in order to be However, it was noted that word teaching all the essential components to identification improved more in the reading. resource room condition and the word In summary, the articles examined attack improved more in the self-contained in this critical review found conclusions room condition. A strength of this study is in favour of the OG approach but also the two conditions to teaching the articles that failed to find evidence approaches. favouring the OG approach. The OG approach to teaching reading has been Conclusion used in classrooms for decades without any conclusive evidence determining Overall, the critical appraisal of that it has positive outcomes. Therefore, relevant research material suggests that determining who would best be served the OG approach to teaching reading by the OG approach, what responses to results in improvement in word reading, expect from individuals based on their instructional needs, who is capable of reading skills by children with reading instructing and research examining the difficulties; A longitudinal study. Annals overall effectiveness of the OG approach of Dyslexia. 51, 75-96 is warranted. Joshi, R.M., Dahlgren, M., & Boulware- Gooden, R. (2002). Teaching reading in Clinical Implication an inner city school through a multisensory approach. Annals of The current evidence examining the OG Dyslexia. 52, 229-242. approach to teaching reading is inadequate. There is variability in the findings across Litcher, J.H., & Roberge, L.P. (1979). the studies examined in this critical review, First grade intervention for reading making it unclear if this approach is achievement of high risk children. beneficial and/or significantly more Bulletin of the Orton Society. 24, 238- beneficial than other approaches to teaching 244. reading. The differences in the results between studies may be due to differing Monsen, R. B. (2004). Children reading. populations, ages, intervention set-up, Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 19, 58-59. assessment measures, and screening procedures. The fact that it takes training to Oakland, T., Black, J.L., Stanford, G., implement the OG instructional approach to Nussbaum, N.L., & Balise, R.R. (1998). teaching reading may make it prove An evaluation of the Dyslexia Training difficult to see consistent results due to Program: A multisensory method for teacher variability. promoting reading in students with In application to the field of Speech- reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Language Pathology (SLP) research may be Disabilities. 31, 140-147. done to examine effectiveness of the SLP utilizing the OG approach in individual or Ritchey, K.D., Goeke, J.L. (2006). group therapy sessions. Research is still Orton-Gillingham and Orton- needed to determine who would be best Gillingham-Based Reading Instruction: served with the OG instructional approach, A Review of the Literature. The Journal at what time/age and in which setting in of Special Education, 40, 171-183. order to improve reading skills. Stoner, J. (1991). Teaching at-risk References students to read using specialized techniques in the regular classroom. Foorman, B.R., Francis, D.J., Winikates, Reading and Writing. An D., Mehta, P., Schatschneider, C., & Interdisciplinary Journal, 3, 19-30. Fletcher, J.M. (1997). Early interventions for children with learning Westrich-Bond, A. (1993). The effects of disabilities. Scientific Studies in direct instruction of a synthetic Reading. 1, 255-276. sequential phonics program on the decoding abilities of elementary school Hook, P., Macaruso, P., & Jones, S. learning disabled students. Unpublished (2001). Efficacy of Fast ForWord doctoral dissertation, New Brunswick: training on facilitating acquisition of The state University of New Jersey, Rutgers.