The Orton-Gillingham Approach and Reading Research: A Framework for Conceptualizing their Nexus

Posted: October 4, 2022

by John Howell, Ph.D., F/OGA and Jane Ashby, Ph.D., A/OGA

Each year Orton-Gillingham (OG) practitioners attend research talks and read research papers in order to keep up to date on the key developments in reading science. This professional learning helps us to become more aware of the “why” behind time-tested OG practices, to acquire additional teaching techniques that benefit students, and to build a research vocabulary that permits us to follow current issues in reading education. Hundreds of reading studies conducted with varying levels of rigor appear each year in journals and books. Knowing how to assess the relevance of new research to our OG practice can be challenging. In one sphere is the student with dyslexia. In the other sphere is the vast reading research literature. Between them stands the OG Practitioner, who is interested in how research can illuminate the needs of a particular student with dyslexia and help improve instruction. Thus, the nexus of OG practice and reading research is complex and can produce confusion.     

This article addresses a central question that OG practitioners encounter in the process of professional learning: how can we bridge research and practice? what research is relevant? In this article, we propose an OG Approach to Reading Science (OGARS) framework for considering the relationship between the OG approach and reading research. The Framework’s objective is to provide a conceptual structure for organizing how OG educators can use their knowledge of the OG Approach to determine the relevance of the reading research for instructional decision-making. The OGARS Framework is intended for use by OGA practitioners trained at the Certified-level or higher. Those with less experience are still learning the OG Approach and should continue to build proficiency with the practices recommended by their Training Fellow.

The OG Approach to Reading Science (OGARS) Framework

The Student at the Center

The student is the alpha and omega of Orton-Gillingham instruction. The well-trained OG Practitioner never forgets this. Prioritizing student information means that the OG Practitioner assesses the relevance of reading research with an eye toward the specific needs of individual students. We select particular activities or procedures from the pantheon of OG knowledge and practices based first and foremost on the needs of the student. Though students with dyslexia share a core phonological deficit, the signs of dyslexia will manifest in different ways and to varying degrees across individuals (e.g., mild to severe) (Petersen & Pennington, 2012).  In addition, the signs of dyslexia may change in the course of development and in response to intervention as initial problems with reading and spelling are remediated and leave more subtle challenges with sequencing and complex language processing. 

As a consequence of the heterogeneity of dyslexia, each student presents a unique profile of learning challenges at a given time in their development. The OG Approach provides the flexibility required to teach students prescriptively. In order to tailor lessons to individual needs, OG Practitioners must be armed with clear data about the performance of each student. The practitioner brings to the initial teaching session as much information about the student as possible. Ideally, this includes testing by a qualified specialist and a case history obtained from parents by a skilled interviewer. In considering the testing data, the practitioner may face a matter that exemplifies the nexus between the Orton-Gillingham Approach and reading research. For example, a testing report may define dyslexia in terms of single word decoding problems and may not recognize residual learning challenges that face students with dyslexia even after they learn to decode. Based on the OG Approach and clinical experience, the OG Practitioner views dyslexia as a condition that manifests in various ways throughout one’s lifetime. Reading research also recognizes that dyslexia persists across the life-span (Fletcher et al., 2018). However, OG Practitioners recognized the life-span implications of dyslexia decades before reading researchers did (Rawson, 1968). Today, reading research and OG knowledge converge to help the practitioner discuss what it means to have dyslexia and what is entailed in having a child with dyslexia. 

The Outer Ring: Reading Research

The dedicated OG Practitioner makes an effort to keep abreast of research developments that may help improve instruction. Several factors make this a difficult task. First, most reading research is conducted with typical learners, and so the applicability to dyslexic learners cannot be assumed. Also, research knowledge does not advance linearly, one study at a time. Practitioners should note that the progress of science can be haphazard in the short-run, making it difficult to discern the actual implications of new findings until many studies have been published. Some published studies report findings that don’t replicate later. Others report reliable effects but misinterpret their cause. Still others may miss effects that could be detected if a stronger research design were used. For these reasons, OG Practitioners should think critically about new research findings. 

Reading research involves dozens of different research methods (e.g., eye movement studies, fMRI studies, lexical decision) that can be challenging for practitioners to understand. When interpreting the results of a study, OG Practitioners will want to be aware of two crucial terms: significant difference and null effect. The goal of a research study is to demonstrate a significant difference between two or more treatment conditions and, therefore, test the relative effectiveness of the treatments. A significant difference (p<.05) between treatment conditions means that the difference in performance of the two treatment groups is very unlikely to be due to chance. Conversely, finding a significant difference between conditions indicates that it is very likely that the observed difference in performance is due to a real treatment effect rather than chance. Were the study repeated 100 times, one would expect to find a similar difference between treatments 95 of those times. Essentially, a significant difference indicates that readers can consider an effect to be reliable; we can trust that differences in performance stemmed from the different treatments tested. Finding a significant difference that indicates the greater effectiveness of one type of instruction over another demands a strong research design: an adequate amount of data, carefully matched groups of students, and a way to measure implementation fidelity (i.e., that the instruction was delivered to an acceptable standard). If these design criteria are not met, then the study is likely to find a null result (i.e., no real difference between conditions). A null result can occur due to weaknesses in the study design, even if there is an actual treatment effect that exists in the real world. For this reason, astronomer Carl Sagan popularized the saying “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”, which cautions about interpreting null effects as evidence. Null effects mean that no evidence has been found by a study; the study results are simply inconclusive. 

OG Practitioners should be wary of research that argues its point based on a null effect. 

Stevens et al. (2021) reports a meta-analysis of around two dozen original studies that measured how “OG” intervention improved reading scores as compared to other reading interventions. When the authors computed effect sizes weighted by the number of children in each study, they found that the “OG” treatment did not improve children’s reading scores significantly more than other interventions. In other words, Stevens et al. (2021) found a null effect of the “OG” treatment in the group of studies they examined. Does this mean that OG is not more effective than other interventions? No, it simply means that this study did not find significant differences between treatments. Now let’s consider why that null effect may have occurred. 

There are several problems in the designs of the original studies that could have led to the null effect reported in Stevens et al. (2020). Limited space prohibits discussing a comprehensive list, but here are a few key points. First, the original studies used settings that are not typical for implementing the OG approach; many studies included small group instruction rather than individualized instruction. Because those small group studies included more students, the treatment effects from small group studies were weighted more heavily than effects from studies that used individualized instruction. Second, these studies did not measure the effectiveness of the OG approach in its full depth and breadth; the studies included branded OG programs and curricula that mixed branded materials rather than utilizing Academy Certified OG Practitioners. Third, 80% of the studies included in the meta-analyses did not report implementation fidelity; most of the studies did not have observers confirm that the OG treatment was being delivered according to acceptable standards. Stevens et al. (2021) was a carefully conducted meta-analysis, but the original studies were not very carefully conducted. The authors note “…the overall study quality of the corpus was low, limiting confidence in the findings…” (p.14). The correct interpretation of the null result in Stevens et al. (2021) is that it does not provide any evidence. Even though research does not currently offer any evidence for the effectiveness of OG, strong evidence for the effectiveness of OG comes from other sources.

The Middle Ring: The OG Practitioner’s Knowledge of the Orton-Gillingham Approach

Between the inner ring of the student and the outer ring of reading research lies the practitioner’s knowledge of the Orton-Gillingham Approach. The OG Approach includes a set of linguistic concepts about the English writing system and our speech apparatus as well as the core questioning protocols described below. As OG Practitioners gain more teaching experience and advance in their training to the Certified level, the middle ring becomes an increasingly acute lens for making instructional decisions that yield effective, prescriptive teaching for individual students. In this way, each OG Practitioner harnesses the collective clinical knowledge accrued in the Approach during the decades of its development in order to benefit their instruction.

The Orton-Gillingham Approach is characterized by a set of interconnected protocols which include what is to be taught, when it is to be taught, how it is to be taught, and why. These questions affect all aspects of instruction: lesson planning, teaching a lesson, and the practitioner’s post-lesson analysis. The process of answering each question helps to guide the selection of content, the timing of its introduction and review, and the lesson procedures for each student. Answers to what, when, and how protocols are shaped by one’s particular scope and sequence, choice of seminal work, and knowledge of the student.

The why protocol is arguably the most crucial aspect of OG training, given that the pursuit of this protocol is necessary for diagnostic and prescriptive teaching as well as for personalized instruction. The why protocol informs lesson planning, error correction in the lesson, and the post-lesson analysis. The OG Practitioner’s ability to address the why depends on careful clinical observations and solid critical thinking skills that develop during extended OG training. Posing and pursuing the why question is an integral, recursive part of a practitioner’s continuous self-education. Why didn’t that work? Why was that successful? Why did the student appear stressed at one point and not at another point? Why did continued blocking occur on that task? The why protocol focuses attention on what works and doesn’t work, and it suggests options for making future instruction more effective.

Answers to the why question not only lead to the resolution of specific instructional problems, they can also lead to an awareness of effective ways to address frequently observed errors and learning challenges. For example, when a student blocks (i.e., is unable to retrieve an answer regarding a concept that has been taught), the practitioner asks the why question and draws upon their total teaching experience to move the student forward. Helping a student retrieve answers to taught concepts might entail rephrasing the question, providing a cue to facilitate the response, and/or introducing additional multi-sensory activities. In addition to problem solving with the core of the OG Approach, the practitioner may consider use of additional practices that may be helpful. Given the power of the why protocol to maximize the effectiveness of instruction through prescriptive teaching, it is not surprising that it is fundamental to the OG Approach.

The characterization of Orton-Gillingham as an Approach is key to understanding the depth, breadth, and flexibility that distinguishes it from branded commercial intervention programs. Commercial dyslexia interventions (identified as methods, techniques, programs, and systems) require far less training and typically give little attention to developing a command of the why protocol. Instructors in those interventions are trained to follow “recipes” of set procedures and content. In contrast, OG Practitioners consider a range of techniques that they employ diagnostically to fit the individual learning needs of students. 

The OG Approach initially developed based on the observation and treatment of struggling readers in a clinical setting at the Language Research Project of the New York Neurological Institute. Here, Dr. Orton, Dr. Dozier, and Anna Gillingham tested the impact of various teaching techniques on learning to read and spell. Dr. and Mrs. Orton’s student records, archived at Columbia University, include over 3200 cases of struggling readers instructed between 1925-1977. This clinical work built the fundamental practice knowledge which contributed to the development of the OG Approach. Practitioners who learn the OG Approach master the linguistic content, the questioning protocols for prescriptive teaching, and specific learning routines such as Simultaneous Oral Spelling (S.O.S). To return to our analogy, branded programs provide teachers with a recipe whereas the OG Approach develops chefs.

The effectiveness of the OG Approach has been demonstrated in a variety of settings: reading clinics, summer language camps, and day and residential schools. All have experienced success with students who had failed to learn to read using conventional methods. Children in these venues not only learned to read, they also became empowered to pursue a range of educational goals and careers that were only accessible because they could now read (Rawson, 1968). Over time, this success inspired the founding of additional instructional venues. Noteworthy among these are the comprehensive educational programs that provide OG instruction for students with dyslexia. Today, the Academy of Orton-Gillingham Practitioners and Education has accredited eighteen such schools and clinics. Clearly, the effectiveness of the OG Approach has been demonstrated over decades in a variety of settings and with many, many dyslexic children.

Bridging Research and Practice: The Nexus of the OG Approach and Research

How can the OG Approach help practitioners determine the relevance of reading research for improving instruction? For the most part, the interface between reading research and the OG Approach is clear. In some cases, the clinical knowledge from the OG Approach leads the research. Major research findings like the phonological core deficit (Fletcher, Lyon, & Fuchs, 2018; Kilpatrick, 2015) come as little surprise to OG practitioners who recall many students over the years who, when asked to repeat the sound of short e, actually produced the sound of short i. Similarly, the importance of transcription processes to written expression (Berninger, 2015; Graham, 2019) does not surprise the OG practitioner who regularly encounters older students whose paragraph writing is completely stymied by slow and inaccurate letter formation. 

In other cases, well-established research has improved OG instruction. For example, OG Practitioners who include phonemic awareness activities readily see its effect on improving decoding. Such instances are examples of convergence between clinically-based OG knowledge and the knowledge gained from reading research. In cases of convergence, each knowledge source has the potential to enrich and complement the other. For example, research conducted in controlled settings with matched groups helps us test and refine core theories about reading processes whereas clinically-based OG knowledge focuses on the effective educational treatment of children who struggle with reading and spelling. Given that both the reading research and the OG Approach are data-driven, it is not too surprising that well-established research findings typically fit with OG principles and practices. 

Whereas OG places great importance upon reading research, it does not necessarily accept the veracity of every published study or the applicability of the findings to specific learners with dyslexia. This may bring to mind a favorite OG adage: “it depends.” A question arises about how the OG Practitioner should weigh findings of individual research studies which do not seem consistent with the OG Approach or may not fit with the observed responses of one’s student. In these cases, we suggest that OG Practitioners follow a primacy principle when interpreting the research. The primacy principle states that when all is said and done, practitioners at the Certified level and beyond rely on the OG Approach as the arbiter of the relevance and usefulness of new research findings for improving instruction for dyslexic learners. 

In the OG Approach to Reading Science (OGARS) Framework, the primacy principle resides within Ring B and rests on the OG knowledge possessed by OG Practitioners individually and prescribed by the Academy as a collective. The OG Approach serves as a lens through which to assess the usefulness of a particular research finding for improving the instruction of a specific student. The Orton-Gillingham Approach, by tradition and in practice, gives most serious consideration to what reading research has to say that is relevant to OG practice, but the primacy principle demands that such an assessment must ring true to the OG Approach. 

What is the justification for a primacy principle? The OG Approach is the expert body of knowledge about how to teach children with dyslexia to read. First, it is the oldest, most influential and pervasive of all dyslexia interventions. The endurance of the Approach provides testament to its success in teaching dyslexic children to read when other interventions fall short. Second, the OG Approach rests on clinical experience gained by teaching and observing thousands of children with dyslexia. OG practitioners engage in an intensive training model that is unparalleled in the field of reading education both in terms of depth of detail and hours of supervised practicum. They develop a knowledge-base that is predicated on decades of clinical observation gained from teaching children with dyslexia. As a result, Certified-level practitioners internalize the OG Approach and become experts in teaching those who have dyslexia. OG Practitioners can rely on their knowledge of the Approach to evaluate the relevance of the research evidence for improving instruction.

The third justification for a primacy principle derives from the timeline along which OG practice knowledge developed and reading research knowledge developed. The central components of the OG Approach were established well before these components were validated by reading research. When it comes to understanding dyslexic readers, the OG Approach simply has been in the game longer than reading research. The foundational roots of the Orton-Gillingham Approach were laid in the 1920s and 1930s. The scientific study of reading, on the other hand, was only gaining its legs in the 1970s. Thus, the clinical knowledge that forms the OG Approach has a fifty-year lead on the science of reading. At its outset, Orton-Gillingham recognized essential teaching principles that the reading research validated only decades later. For example, Ring et al. (2017) note that OG uniquely emphasized direct, explicit, structured, and sequential instruction from its earliest days. Wiley and Rapp (2021) just reported that for typical learners, handwriting leads to better letter recognition than typing or visual presentation only. OG Practitioners have found this to be true for readers with dyslexia since the 1920’s. Of course, there are other examples of research that has advanced the effectiveness of the OG approach, such as the research in phonemic awareness. 

The present day OG Approach is codified and buttressed by the OG Academy, which sets rigorous training and practice standards. The Approach is unique in its ability to support effective instruction for a wide range of students, guide the use of materials that were not intrinsic to the original approach, and adopt new instructional goals indicated by accumulating research. That the advanced practitioner may venture outside of the Orton-Gillingham Approach is best understood by stressing it is an Approach, not a technique, program, method, or system. As such it has a breadth, a depth, and flexibility that permits the use of augmenting practices from the outside. 

When encountering new research conducted with struggling readers, OG practitioners should read carefully to determine if there was a significant effect and then assess whether the findings are consistent with the knowledge in the Orton-Gillingham Approach. If a significant effect is reported but the practitioner does not deem the research finding to be basically consistent with the OG Approach (e.g., sustained silent reading for children who have decoding problems), then the OG Practitioner need not attend to it. If the finding is basically consistent with the OG Approach (e.g., phonemic awareness), then the OG Practitioner may test its power to improve learning in the context of reading lessons with appropriate students. Through this observation process, the OG Practitioner develops clinical knowledge of whether a new, research-based concept can improve learning for dyslexic students. Over time, the practitioner begins to understand which students are most likely to be helped by the new research finding. 

In summary, we propose the OGARS framework as a way for advanced practitioners to evaluate the relevance of reading research for improving instruction for dyslexic readers. The OG Practitioner weighs and integrates several knowledge sources when making instructional decisions: knowledge of the student, knowledge of the OG Approach, and knowledge from the reading research. The management of all these elements is complex. The OGARS framework suggests how to prioritize the various elements and, thereby provides the advanced OG Practitioner with a greater sense of confidence when contemplating the inclusion of outside elements in their OG lesson. The concept of a primacy principle provides a perspective for assessing the relevance new reading research to dyslexia instruction and manage with equanimity potential challenges to the validity of the Orton-Gillingham Approach.

References

Berninger, V. W. (2015). Interdisciplinary frameworks for schools: Best professional practices for serving the needs of all students. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Fuchs, L. S., & Barnes, M. A. (2018). Learning disabilities: From identification to intervention. Guilford Publications.

Graham, S. (2019). Changing how writing is taught. Review of Research in Education, 43(1), 277–303. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X18821125

Kilpatrick, D. A. (2015). Essentials of assessing, preventing, and overcoming reading difficulties. John Wiley & Sons.

Peterson, R.L & Pennington, F.P. (2012). Developmental dyslexia. The Lancet, 379, 1997- 2007.

Rawson, M. (1968). Developmental Language Disabilities: Adult Accomplishments of Dyslexic Boys. Educators Publishing Service.

Ring, J. J., Avrit, K. J., & Black, J. L. (2017). Take flight: the evolution of an Orton Gillingham-based curriculum. Annals of Dyslexia, 67(3), 383-400.

Samuel Torrey and June Lyday Orton Case Files, Archives & Special Collections, Columbia University Health Sciences.

Stevens, E.A., Austin, C., Moore, C., Scammacca, N., Boucher, A.N., and Vaughn, S. (2021). Current state of the evidence: Examining the effects of Orton-Gilligham reading interventions for students with or at risk for word-level reading disabilities. Exceptional Children,  https://edarxiv.org/37b9p/  

Wiley, R. W., & Rapp, B. (2021). The effects of handwriting experience on literacy learning. Psychological Science, 0956797621993111.