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