Orton Gillingham

TEACHING Exceptional Children, Vol. 51, No. 3, pp. 240–249. Copyright 2018 The Author(s). DOI: 10.1177/0040059918816996

Orton Gillingham
Who, What, and How
Kristin L. Sayeski, Gentry A. Earle, Rosalie Davis,
and Josie Calamari
Hannah Thomas and Rubia McDaniels, wherein parents sued school districts in designed to promote mastery and
two special education teachers, attended order for their children to receive automaticity of those skills for students
a regional conference on reading OG-based instruction. Many specialized with dyslexia (Uhry & Clark, 2005).
disabilities. During the conference, private schools for students with An OG approach has been variously
several speakers mentioned Orton learning disabilities offer reading described as language based,
Gillingham (OG) in reference to the type programs designed around the multisensory, flexible, cognitive,
of instruction provided to students with principles of OG (Hanford, 2017; Rose systematic, explicit, and cumulative
dyslexia. After one of the presentations, & Zirkel, 2007). Yet, given the (Davis, 2011; Sheffield, 1991). Given
Hannah turned to Rubia and stated, “I specialized training required to the extensive training required, OG
am a little embarrassed, but after 10 implement OG, many public school practitioners are best described as
years of teaching reading to kids with teachers are not familiar with OG and professionals with a deep
learning disabilities, I have no idea who have not received preparation in the understanding of language who are
or what Orton Gillingham is. Is this a foundational knowledge and skills skilled in the delivery of specific
program or curriculum we could get for associated with a language-based OG-based techniques required to
our school? How would it be different approach to reading instruction (Budin, systematically teach struggling
from what we are already doing for Mather, & Cheeseman, 2010; Youman & individuals to read (see Table 2 for
intervention?” Rubia shook her head Mather, 2013). As a result, OG-based sample requirements for practitioner
and said, “I am in the same boat. Over instruction may not be equally certification). Therefore, although the
the years, I have had parents mention it accessible to public school students day-to-day implementation of OG will
to me, but I have always responded by from lower socioeconomic vary slightly from practitioner to
explaining how the instruction I provide backgrounds, including culturally and practitioner, OG instruction will reflect
is based on the five big ideas in reading linguistically diverse students with a similar structure, include a consistent
and supported by research. It probably dyslexia. nomenclature, and possess features
wouldn’t hurt to find out more about that will be constant across all
Orton Gillingham as I would love to implementations. In short, it is easy to
provide a more detailed response to Who and What Is Orton identify OG, if one knows what to look
parents about what it is.” Gillingham for.
Dr. Samuel T. Orton (1897–1948) was a
For many, the terms dyslexia and neuropsychiatrist and pathologist who After a quick search online, Hannah
Orton Gillingham go hand in hand, yet was particularly interested in the and Rubia found that an introductory
much is misunderstood about both causes of reading failure and related 30-hour course was being offered in
terms. Dyslexia is a specific learning language-processing difficulties. Anna their area that summer. Their principal
disability that is neurobiological in Gillingham (1878–1963) was an agreed to send them to this weeklong
origin and results in difficulty with educator and psychologist who had a professional-development training.
accurate or fluent word recognition, deep understanding of language. Hannah and Rubia knew that this
reading, and spelling (International Encouraged by Dr. Orton, Gillingham would be the first step in understanding
Dyslexia Association [IDA], 2014). published her first set of instructional what OG is. They were curious to see if
However, dyslexia is commonly and materials in the mid-1930s (Gillingham the methods they learned could be
incorrectly associated with problems in & Stillman, 1936). Given their mutual incorporated into their teaching of
visual processing—letters jumping interest in the structure of language students who had reading-based
around a page or reversals (Washburn, and how this structure is internalized learning disabilities.
Joshi, & Binks-Cantrell, 2011). OG is an by individuals in order for reading to
approach to teaching individuals with occur, Orton and Gillingham worked to
dyslexia to read based on principles Distinguishing Features of OG
create an approach to reading that (a)
established by Samuel T. Orton and explicitly taught students elements of Several distinguishing features of OG
Anna Gillingham, but it is commonly language (e.g., phonology, facilitate student learning. These
and incorrectly described as a program syllabification, morphology; see Table 1 features include (a) direct, systematic,
or curriculum. for reading terminology and incremental, and cumulative lessons;
Even though Orton and Gillingham definitions) and (b) facilitated students’ (b) cognitive explanations; (c)
established their foundational automaticity in applying this diagnostic and prescriptive methods;
principles for reading instruction in the knowledge to the decoding (reading) (d) linguistics-based instruction; and
1930s and 1940s, the methodology and encoding (spelling) of language. (e) multisensory engagement (see
developed as a result of their work is Thus, their approach to reading Table 3 for descriptions and examples
still considered by many to be the instruction was based on breaking of these features). These features are in
signature approach for addressing down the components of language into alignment with many national
reading disabilities. Rose and Zirkel individual and overlapping skills and syntheses of research, such as the
(2007) found 64 cases of litigation then creating instructional activities National Early Literacy Panel (2008)

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN | JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2019 241

Table 1. Reading Terminology and Definitions

Terminology Definition

decoding The ability to translate a word from print to speech, usually by employing knowledge of
sound-symbol correspondences

encoding Using individual sounds to spell letters and words

grapheme A letter or letter combination that represents a single phoneme (e.g., ch = /ch/, d = /d/)

keywords Words taught to students to help them learn letter sounds; for example, a keyword for the
short a sound could be apple (a = apple; b = bat; c = cat)

morphology The study of word forms, including affixes and root/base words

orthography Written system that represents language

phoneme A speech sound that combines with others to make words

phonemic awareness The ability to break down and manipulate the individual sounds in spoken language

phonics A method of teaching reading that emphasizes the sounding out of letters, groups of letters,
and familiar patterns of letters in order to read words

phonology The study of the rule system that governs the sequencing of phonemes in a language

schwa A schwa sound, /ə/, is a brief vowel sound that occurs only in unaccented syllables and
sounds like a short u (e.g., again, celebrate, occur).

syllabification The division of words into syllables

syllable Uninterrupted segment of speech consisting of at least one vowel sound

and the National Reading Panel (2000), Weiser & Mathes, 2011). An OG phonemic awareness.” Basic phonemic
as well as more recent, systematic approach will include attention to awareness instruction involves teaching
reviews of the research literature. letter-level instruction and integration students to segment (e.g., “Say the
Specifically, defining characteristics of of encoding instruction. sounds in cat: /k/ [pause], /a/ [pause],
an OG approach—explicit, systematic, Although many features of the OG /t/.”) and blend (e.g., “Listen to the
and phonics based—have been approach align with research on following sounds: /k/[pause], /a/
supported by research on effective effective reading instruction, it is [pause], /t/ [pause]. Now say them
reading instruction (Brady, Braze, & important to note common criticisms of fast: cat.”). In contrast, advanced
Fowler, 2011; Kilpatrick, 2015). For OG. For example, in Kilpatrick’s (2015) phonemic awareness involves the more
example, recent research has revealed comprehensive review of reading challenging tasks of phoneme deletion
the value of synthetic phonics research, he identified three (e.g., “Say the word cat. Now say the
approaches (Brady et al., 2011). Within components of reading intervention word without the /k/ sound.”) and
synthetic approaches, students are that appear central to the effective substitution (e.g., “Say the word cat.
taught to attend to letters and letter remediation of reading difficulties. Replace the /k/ sound with /m/:
patterns when decoding words. Specifically, reading intervention mat.”). Although Kilpatrick identified
Research has demonstrated that programs that provided (a) basic and the lack of advanced phonemic
instruction that reflects a synthetic advanced phonemic awareness awareness instruction within OG, the
(grapheme- or letter-level) approach to instruction, (b) explicit decoding individualized nature of OG
decoding instruction can boost instruction, and (c) ample implementation does not prohibit
students’ word and nonword reading opportunities to apply reading skills to advanced phonemic awareness
ability (Jeynes, 2008; Johnston, connected text resulted in superior instruction (i.e., phoneme deletion and
McGeown, & Watson, 2012; Johnston & gains in terms of student achievement. substitution can easily be combined
Watson, 2004). In addition, integrating Kilpatrick found that although with OG; see IDA, 2010), and programs
encoding instruction within phonics- OG-based instruction provided explicit based on OG principles explicitly
based instruction has been shown to instruction in phonemic awareness and include advanced phonemic awareness
improve word reading, phonological decoding as well as applied instruction (e.g., Lindamood Phoneme
awareness, comprehension, and opportunities, OG fell short in terms of Sequencing Program, a program
spelling outcomes (Weiser, 2012; providing instruction in “advanced reviewed favorably by Kilpatrick, 2015).

242 COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

Table 2. Academy of Orton Gillingham (OG) Practitioners and Educators (AOGPE): Certification Levels and Requirements

Level of certification Training requirements Qualifications

OG Classroom Educator Prerequisite: Bachelor’s degree An OGCE is qualified to provide OG

(OGCE) Course work: 30 hours literacy instruction to classes or small
Practicum hours: 50 hours (over 8 months) groups (i.e., Tier 1 instruction).
Observations: 5
Readings: As assigned

Associate Prerequisite: Bachelor’s degree An Associate is qualified to provide

Course work: 60–70 hours 1:1 (A-level) or 1:1 and small-group
Practicum: 100 hours (over 8 months) (B-level) OG instruction under the
•• 100 hours 1:1 or mentorship of an Academy Fellow.
•• 50 hours 1:1 and 50 hours small group or
classroom setting
Observations: 10
Readings: AOGPE Associate reading list 2017

Certified Prerequisite: Bachelor’s degree A Certified member is qualified to be

Course work: 100 hours (plus 60 from Associate) an independent practitioner of OG
Practicum hours: 200 hours (over 2 academic years) (Tier 3 instruction).
Observations: 10 (40- to 60-minute lessons)
Readings: AOGPE Certified reading list 2017

Fellow Prerequisite: Master’s degree A Fellow is qualified to train and

Course work: 90 hours (plus 160 from Certified) supervise other in the OG approach
Practicum: 300 hours (over 3 academic years) and well as provide direct services.
Observations: 10
•• Teaching courses
•• Supervising trainees
•• Conducting observations
•• Providing feedback to trainees
Readings: AOGPE Fellow reading list

Note. There are different routes to certification offered through different organizations.

Another criticism of OG is its focus other reading programs that include a reading failure (see Brady et al., 2011;
on the use of multisensory techniques. multisensory focus have been Kilpatrick, 2015). Deep understanding
It is important to note, though, that the demonstrated as successful (see of the similarities and differences
integration of multisensory techniques Kilpatrick, 2015). across programs can enrich teachers’
within OG is not an application of the Therefore, although there are many understanding of reading instruction
visual-auditory-kinesthetic (VAK) signature elements of an OG approach and development.
learning styles theory. The VAK (e.g., unique terminology used for
learning styles theory posits that instruction, such as the term During the week of training,
individuals have learning modality phonograms to refer to letter-sound Hannah and Rubia immersed
preferences and that teaching to a cards; elements included within themselves in the language and
singular, preferred modality aids instruction, such as strategies for methods of OG. During breaks and at
learning (Willingham, Hughes, & teaching syllabification), the delivery of lunch, they would discuss certain
Dobolyi, 2015). Learning styles theory an OG approach aligns with many students who would have benefited
is largely unsupported by research features identified by research as from an understanding of syllable types
(Cuevas, 2015). In contrast, in an OG essential for the delivery of effective to aid in the pronunciation of words
approach, all modalities are engaged to reading instruction and intervention. (see Table 4 for an overview of OG
support repeated practice, varied Of course, there are other highly syllable types) or how they had always
instruction, and multiple systematic, phonics-based programs taught letter sounds but did not have a
representations of concepts. These that are not based upon the principles strong scope and sequence for how
features of instruction are supported by of OG that also reflect evidence-based those sounds should be introduced or
research (Brown, Roediger, & practices and are effective for students what the sequence for subsequent
McDaniel, 2014). Similarly, research on with dyslexia or who are at risk for phonics instruction should look like.

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN | JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2019 243

Table 3. Distinguishing Features of an Orton Gillingham (OG) Approach

Feature Definition What it looks like in an OG lesson

Direct, systematic, Teacher determines what and how Sample lesson plan outline
incremental, and instruction will occur. Includes •• Visual drill (phonogram cards)
cumulative lessons modeling, student engagement, and •• Auditory drill (dictate phonograms)
feedback. The term drill is used to •• Sound blending (reading words)
reflect the high levels of student •• Reteach confusing concepts (e.g., b/d, sound
engagement and repetition included cousins); review previously taught skill
within individual lessons. Instruction is •• Learned (nonphonetic) word instruction (reading and
based on a clear scope and sequence of spelling)
a hierarchy of skills; a similar format to •• New concept/rule/phonogram/syllable instruction
each lesson is followed. •• Spelling work
•• Sentence work
•• Oral reading (decodable text)

Cognitive Teacher explains rules for spelling; Students are taught rules that help them understand
explanations student understands why a word why, such as the following:
is pronounced or spelled in a •• The FLOSS rule: If a one-syllable word ends in a
particular way. Students apply their vowel immediately followed by the consonant f, l, or
understanding of language when s, double that consonant.
reading and spelling. •• Use ck to spell /k/ when the sound follows a short
vowel.
•• C and g are soft when followed by e, i, or y.

Diagnostic/ All responses are monitored and An OG practitioner will plan the next lesson based on
prescriptive methods subsequent lessons are built on data how the student performed in the current lesson. In
collected during previous lessons. addition, the practitioner will use an assessment, such
as the Gallistel-Ellis Test of Coding Skills or the Wilson
Assessment of Decoding and Encoding, on a regular
basis (e.g., after about 25 lessons) in order to monitor
progress.

Linguistics-based Initial decoding and spelling work Early lessons include instruction on sound-symbol
instruction progresses to include instruction relationships (/b/ = b), blending (/b/-/a/-/t),
on syllables, morphemes, syntax, segmenting for spelling (/b/ = b; /a/ = a; /t/ = t), and
semantics, and grammar. Reading, handwriting (legible letter formation). Later lessons
writing, and spelling instruction are address word families (e.g., -ild, -old, -ind, -ost), syllable
integrated within each lesson. types (e.g., open, closed), morphemes (e.g., common
suffixes and prefixes), syntax, semantics, grammar,
reading comprehension, and written expression.

Multisensory Instruction includes auditory, visual, When teaching the short /a/ vowel sound, students hear
and movement-based activities to the sound, repeat the sound, learn the correct position
emphasis features of instruction. of mouth and tongue, visualize the letter, and write the
letter. This process will be reiterated multiple times,
and different prompts will be provided (e.g., “Show me
what your mouth looks like for the short /a/ sound”) to
reinforce learning and automaticity.

The teachers lamented the fact that within reading instruction by having learned strategies and procedures and
spelling instruction had seemed like a students encode immediately following wrote down many references to
luxury—something they did not have decoding practice (i.e., see a letter, say workbooks or other readings that would
time to address when issues related to the sound; hear a sound, write the deepen their understanding of language
reading were so pressing. However, letter; see a word, decode the word; development and how to apply that
during the training, they saw how easy hear a word, spell the word; hear a knowledge to teaching. They also came
it was to integrate spelling instruction sentence, write the sentence). They to the realization that they had a lot

244 COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

Table 4. Orton Gillingham REVLOC Mnemonic for Six Syllable Types

Syllable type Explanation Examples

R = r controlled Syllable that has an r immediately following a vowel ar, or, er, ir, ur, ear, our, barn, star,
wherein the r distorts the sound of the vowel yard, fern, bird, torn, worn, burn, purse

E = “magic” e A syllable with the long vowel–consonant–silent e pattern bake, game, Pete, pine, bone, poke,
flute

V = vowel teams A syllable containing two or more vowels that represent oak, seen, bean, pie, train, cheek, boat,
one sound tray, bow

L = consonant + le An unaccented final syllable containing a consonant and bubble, handle, humble, circle, jungle
le; always has a schwa sound for the vowel sound

O = open A syllable ending with a single vowel; in a one-syllable hi, go, me, so, she, lady, spider, music,
word, the vowel is usually long, but in an unaccented pilot, depend
syllable, it may have a schwa sound (e.g., alone)

C = closed A syllable in which a single vowel is followed by a at, mat, if, sit, bet, rabbit, pencil,
consonant; the vowel is usually short but in a word of kitten, muffin, insect
more than one syllable, t may have a schwa sound (e.g.,
cotton)

more work to do in order to “do” OG necessary to make use of a variety of planning process. Although many
well. At the workshop, some of the materials in order to craft programs contain the common OG
participants talked about using specific individualized OG-based lessons. This features, such as explicit instruction in
programs that were based on OG, such type of instruction is referred to by the syllabification and multisensory
as the Wilson Reading System (Wilson, Institute of Education Sciences as methods, unique variations include
2017). They wondered what these “unbranded Orton Gillingham.” In Wilson Reading Systems’ “sound-
programs were and how they differed contrast to these certified practitioner- tapping system” and Lindamood-Bell’s
from what they were learning. developed plans, several commercial use of imagery. These signature
programs have been developed based methods reflect interpretations or
upon the sequential, multisensory enhancements of original OG practices.
Unbranded and Branded OG
principles of OG. These programs are
Individuals who are certified by referred to as “branded OG” (see On the last day of training, a group
professional organizations, such as the Table 5 for a sample list of programs). of participants (teachers and private
Academy of Orton Gillingham For some practitioners, the advantage tutors) went out to lunch together.
Practitioners and Educators and the of branded OG programs is that they Among this group were a couple of
Institute for Multi-Sensory Education, provide additional structure and format people who had prior experience using
have the knowledge and skills for instruction, which can simplify the OG-based programs, such as the Wilson

Table 5. Unbranded and Branded Orton Gillingham Instruction

Unbranded Orton Gillingham Branded Orton Gillingham (i.e., commercially available programs)

Customized instruction delivered by •• Alphabetic Phonics

certified Orton Gillingham practitioners •• Barton Reading and Spelling System
•• Herman Method
•• Language!
•• Lindamood-Bell
•• Recipe for Reading
•• S.P.I.R.E.
•• Spalding
•• Take Flight
•• The Slingerland Approach
•• The Writing Road to Reading
•• Wilson Reading System

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN | JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2019 245

Table 6. Lesson Plan Framework

Focus area Lesson activity Time

Word study/ Phonological awareness/phonics activity

decoding •• Phonemic awareness (sans letters)
•• Visual drill (phonograms, sound cards, magnetic letters)
•• Name-keyword-sound
•• Letter-sound
•• Sounds only
•• Sound-letter work (letters and letter patterns/phonograms)
•• Teach new concepts (e.g., consonants/vowels, digraphs)
•• Make words with sounds or cards
•• Play with word structure (remove/add letters/word parts)

Syllable work
•• Teach or review syllable types (as appropriate)
•• Coding/marking works
•• Syllable division with cards or mini-whiteboards

Decoding + irregular (learned) words

•• Wordlist reading (followed by questions/extensions)
•• Word cards (fluency games)
•• Learned word instruction (SOS, gel pads, air writing)

Spelling + written Spelling

expression •• Auditory drill/dictation (spell sounds, words)
•• Teach/review concepts for spelling (rules)

Dictation (syntax + handwriting)

•• Written dictation work (sounds, words, sentences)
•• Handwriting practice
•• Syntax and paragraph writing work

Fluency + Controlled sentence or passage reading (decodable text)/fluency

comprehension •• Sentence reading (silent reading, oral reading, scooping)
•• Passage reading (silent reading, oral reading, scooping)

Listening comprehension (grade-level text)

•• Vocabulary instruction
•• Morphology instruction
•• Teach comprehension strategies
•• Apply comprehension strategies

Reading System and Barton Reading research had demonstrated that one Ritchey & Goeke, 2006; What Works
and Spelling System. Hannah and approach or program was best. Clearinghouse, 2010). Internal validity
Rubia could now see the difference is how well confounding variables are
between an OG practitioner—as person controlled for by the research design,
who has years of training and Efficacy Research on OG and external validity is the capacity of
experience designing and delivering OG Implementation the findings generated by the study to
instruction—and a person who uses a Although an OG-based approach to be applied to similar populations (e.g.,
branded OG program, who may have reading would be considered research other students with reading
training only in that specific program. based (i.e., aspects of the approach disabilities). Specific challenges to
With their new understanding of OG, have been demonstrated as effective by internal and external validity include
Hannah and Rubia knew that OG research), research on the effectiveness variation in implementation and
practices were in alignment with the of an OG-based intervention, as a context of delivery, respectively.
principles of effective reading whole, is challenged by threats to A crucial aspect of a strong research
instruction for students with learning internal and external validity study is tight control over the variables
disabilities, but they weren’t sure if (Alexander & Slinger-Constant, 2004; involved. Therefore, the independent

246 COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

variable—in the case of OG, the practitioner. As noted previously, school year. By July, they were ready to
intervention delivered should be as students typically receive OG take a long, hard look at their current
consistent as possible across instruction through tutors or private reading instruction. Knowing that they
participants. A clearly operationalized schools (Joshi, Dahlgren, & Boulware- did not have the resources or time to
and uniformly delivered intervention Gooden, 2002; Rose & Zirkel, 2007). In train in a specific program, they decided
increases the confidence with which a addition, families or schools may to table further exploration of branded
researcher can say, “Students with object to the use of a control group, as OG programs. First, they wanted to see
reading disabilities who received x some students will be denied access to what they could learn from applying
intervention for y duration made, on the specialized instruction (Rose & some of the foundational concepts
average, z amount of gains.” This Zirkel, 2007). covered in their initial training. They
confidence is referred to as the internal Although research on branded OG knew that this hands-on application of
validity of a study. The challenge with programs can also suffer from similar OG could also serve as a guide if they
OG is that it is not a standardized limitations, such as lack of control did decide to seek training in a specific
program, and implementation varies groups or random assignment (Ritchey program at a later date. Carefully
due to differences in student need and & Goeke, 2006), the structure of the spreading out all of the OG content and
teacher selection of particular programs and more standardized materials on a table, they identified
instructional activities. Although implementation has resulted in a three areas that they could immediately
advocates of OG note that the handful of studies demonstrating make changes to: scope and sequence,
individualization of intervention “potentially positive effects,” daily lesson plans, and assessment.
delivery is a strength of the program particularly in the areas of alphabetics
(Davis, 2011; Sheffield, 1991), it does and reading fluency (e.g., Lindamood
present challenges for research. Other Phoneme Sequencing and Wilson OG and Special Education:
common, uncontrolled variables in prior Reading System; see What Works Practice Applications
research on OG have included variation Clearinghouse, 2010). Although special educators and other
in duration of intervention session, It is important to note that these practitioners who complete a 30-hour
intensity of intervention, and focus of challenges to internal and external introductory OG training session will
intervention (Ritchey & Goeke, 2006). validity are common within education not possess the deep knowledge and
In addition to the challenge of research (Hempenstall, 2014). As a skills equivalent to those of a certified
establishing strong internal validity, result, the majority of literacy OG practitioner, this introductory, basic
research on OG is also hampered by approaches and programs used within training is ample to provide a wealth of
threats to external validity. One way to general and special education fall new strategies that can complement
increase the external validity of a study under the category of research based the delivery of reading intervention for
is through random assignment of rather than the more stringent evidence students with reading disabilities or
participants from a target population to based category. This lack of research, who are struggling to learn to read. For
either a treatment or control condition. however, should not imply that all example, training will include materials
Many OG studies fail to randomly programs are equally effective or and resources related to a scope and
assign students to condition (Richey & ineffective. The limitations in research sequence for instruction. A strong
Goeke, 2006). For example, if the highlight the need for teachers to be scope and sequence reflects a
population of interest was third to fifth savvy consumers and the importance progression of less complex to more
graders with reading disabilities who of data to guide teachers’ decision complex skills, presents the most
are performing at least two grade levels making. The more teachers understand functional skills before less common
below in reading, a strong research about language and reading skills, and includes a plan for teaching
study might identify 90 students who development, the more competent they prerequisite concepts through
meet that profile and then randomly will be in their ability to screen appropriate scaffolding. In addition,
assign students to different treatment programs to see if necessary knowledge participants will learn how to use
groups: One group receives OG, one and skills are being addressed (Binks- informal assessments, such as the
group receives Super Duper Reading, Cantrell, Washburn, Joshi, & Hougen, Gallistel-Ellis Test of Coding Skills
and one group receives whatever 2012). Data on student performance (Gallistel, 2005) or the CORE Phonics
regular reading instruction is provided will also serve as a guide for Survey (Diamond & Thorsnes, 2018),
in their school (i.e., the “business-as- determining program efficacy. that can be used for initial planning
usual” group). In this type of design, and as a progress-monitoring tool.
individual variations in students are By the end of their 30 hours of
controlled for through random training, Hannah and Rubia were To begin mapping out their plan for
assignment. However, OG is intensive exhausted, inspired, and full of new reading instruction, Hannah and Rubia
(typically delivered one-on-one or in ideas. They decided to take some looked at the scope and sequence they
small groups), expensive, and well-deserved time off and regroup in received during their training. They
dependent on a highly qualified July to map out their plan for the next knew that the underlying principle of

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN | JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2019 247

OG was to systematically build pronounced in a particular way can be Cuevas, J. (2015). Is learning styles-
students’ understanding of word parts. empowering for teachers—stronger based instruction effective? A
For example, for their beginning explanations and new strategies for comprehensive analysis of recent
readers, after teaching students remediation stem from understanding research on learning styles. Theory and
Research In Education, 13, 308–333.
consonant-vowel-consonant (CVC) language development—and can allow
doi:10.1177/1477878515606621
words (e.g., mat, sad, hit, bed), they for more insightful assessment of
Davis, J. B. (2011). The effects of an Orton-
would introduce consonant digraphs students’ strengths and needs. Gillingham-based reading intervention on
(e.g., sh, ch, th, ck) and then slowly The English language is complex students with emotional/behavior disorders
add in beginning and ending blends but not insurmountable. Every time (Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
(e.g., st, sp, dr, fr, scr) to teach CCVC teachers engage in professional University of Toledo, Toledo, OH).
and CVCC words. They used their scope development or training that enhances Diamond, L., & Thorsnes, B. J. (2018).
and sequence to collect materials (e.g., their knowledge of the structure of Assessing reading: Multiple measures
sound cards, rules posters) and begin language and strategies for teaching (2nd ed.). Novato, CA: Arena Press.
thinking about planning. Next, they this structure to students, they are Gallistel, E. (2005). Gallistel-Ellis Test of
designed a new lesson plan framework becoming more skilled technicians of Coding Skills. Madison, WI: Montage
Press.
that included daily drilling of reading. For students with dyslexia, a
Gillingham, A., & Stillman, B. W. (1936).
phonograms (cards with letters and knowledgeable and skilled teacher can
Remedial work for reading, spelling
letter combinations that represent make all the difference. and penmanship. New York: Sackett
sounds; e.g., ck = /k/; b = /b/; s = & Wilhelms Lithographing & Printing
/s/ and /z/) coupled with dictation By the time the new school year Corporation.
work (Table 6). To accompany this, they began, Hannah and Rubia were ready Hanford, E. (2017). Hard to read: How
had a handwriting guide they would to begin their enhanced literacy American schools fail kids with
use with students to help them master instruction. They were excited about the dyslexia. American Public Media
accurate letter formation. Finally, the new scope and sequence and Reports. Retrieved from https://www.
teachers knew that their first task when particularly ready to integrate spelling apmreports.org/story/2017/09/11/hard-
students arrived back at school would and handwriting within daily reading, to-read
Hempenstall, K. (2014). What works?
be to conduct informal assessments. but Rubia wanted more. She contacted
Evidence-based practice in education
These assessments would help them a local “OG Fellow” and was taking her
is complex. Australian Journal of
identify students’ specific skills and first steps toward pursuing official
Learning Difficulties, 19, 113–127. doi:
determine initial reading groups. They certification. 10.1080/19404158.2014.921631
could also use the assessments to track International Dyslexia Association. (2010).
students’ progress over the course of the Knowledge and practice standards for
References
year. They selected assessments for the teachers of reading. Baltimore, MD:
following areas: alphabetic knowledge Alexander, A. W., & Slinger-Constant, A. Author.
(letter-sound recognition), concepts of (2004). Current status of treatments for International Dyslexia Association. (2014).
dyslexia: Critical review. Journal of Child IDA dyslexia handbook: What every
print, phonological awareness,
Neurology, 19, 744–758. doi:10.1177/088 family should know. Baltimore, MD:
phoneme awareness, word and sentence
30738040190100401 Author.
reading, and connected text reading Binks-Cantrell, E., Washburn, E. K., Joshi, Jeynes, W. H. (2008). A meta-analysis of the
(i.e., an informal reading assessment). R. M., & Hougen, M. (2012). Peter relationship between phonics instruction
effect in the preparation of reading and minority elementary school student
Conclusion teachers. Scientific Studies of Reading, academic achievement. Education and
16, 526–536. doi:10.1080/10888438.201 Urban Society, 40, 151–166. doi:10.1080/
The history of intervention for students 1.601434 19404158.2014.921631
with dyslexia is intertwined with the Brady, S. A., Braze, D., & Fowler, C. A. Johnston, R. S., McGeown, S., & Watson, J.
history of Orton and Gillingham and (2011). Explaining individual differences E. (2012). Long-term effects of synthetic
the curricula based on their work. An in reading: Theory and evidence. New versus analytic phonics teaching on the
understanding of fundamental York, NY: Psychology Press. reading and spelling ability of 10 year
principles of OG can help special Brown, P. C., Roediger, H. L., III, & old boys and girls. Reading and Writing,
McDaniel, M. A. (2014). Make it stick: 25, 1365–1384. doi:10.1007/s11145-011-
educators understand foundational
The science of successful learning. 9323-x
elements of literacy instruction. Simply
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Belknap Johnston, R. S., & Watson, J. E. (2004).
studying resources associated with OG
Press of Harvard University Press. Accelerating the development of reading,
implementation can deepen a teacher’s doi:10.4159/9780674419377 spelling and phonemic awareness
understanding of the structure of Budin, S. G., Mather, N., & Cheesman, E. skills in initial readers. Reading and
language and why students may (2010) Examining promising practices to Writing, 17, 327–357. doi:10.1023/
struggle to understand certain concepts improve linguistic knowledge and inform B:READ.0000032666.66359.62
(e.g., Moats’ [2010] text Speech to practice in teacher education. Perspectives Joshi, R. M., Dahlgren, M., & Boulware-
Print). Knowing why a word is on Language and Literacy, 36, 13-16. Gooden, R. (2002). Teaching reading

248 COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

 in an inner city school through a National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the Willingham, D. T., Hughes, E. M., &
multisensory teaching approach. Annals National Reading Panel: Teaching children Dobolyi, D. G. (2015). The scientific
of Dyslexia, 52, 229–242. to read (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). status of learning styles theories.
Kilpatrick, D. A. (2015). Essentials of Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Teaching of Psychology, 42, 266–271.
assessing, preventing, and overcoming Health and Human Services. doi:10.1177/0098628315589505
reading difficulties. Hoboken, NJ: Washburn, E. K., Joshi, R. M., & Binks- Wilson, B. A. (2017). Wilson reading
Wiley. Cantrell, E. S. (2011). Teacher system instructor manual (4th ed.).
Moats, L. C. (2010). Speech to print: knowledge of basic language concepts Oxford, MA: Wilson Language Training
Language essentials for teachers. and dyslexia. Dyslexia, 17, 165–183. Corporation.
Baltimore, MD: Brookes. doi:10.1002/dys.426 Youman, M., & Mather, N. (2013). Dyslexia
National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Weiser, B. L. (2012). Ameliorating laws in the USA. Annals of Dyslexia, 63,
Developing early literacy: Report of reading disabilities early: Examining 133–153. doi:10.1007/s11881-012-0076-2
the National Early Literacy Panel. an effective encoding and decoding
Washington, DC: National Institute for prevention instruction model. Kristin L. Sayeski, Associate Professor,
Literacy. Learning Disability Quarterly, 36, 161– Communication Sciences and Special
Ritchey, K. D., & Goeke, J. L. (2006). Orton 177. doi:10.1177/0731948712450017 Education, University of Georgia, Athens,
Gillingham and Orton Gillingham- Weiser, B. L., & Mathes, P. (2011). GA; Gentry A. Earle, First Grade Teacher,
based reading instruction: A review Using encoding instruction to Wardlaw School, Atlanta Speech School,
of literature. The Journal of Special improve the reading and spelling Atlanta, GA; Rosalie Davis, Fellow,
Education, 40, 171–183. performances of elementary students Academy of Orton-Gillingham Practioners
Rose, T. E., & Zirkel, P. (2007). Orton- at risk for literacy difficulties: A and Educators, and Josie Calamari, Director
Gillingham methodology for students best-evidence synthesis. Review of of Teacher Training, The Schenck School,
with reading disabilities: 30 years of case Educational Research, 81, 170–200. Atlanta, GA.
law. The Journal of Special Education, doi:10.3102/0034654310396719
41, 171–185. What Works Clearinghouse. (2010). Address correspondence concerning this
Sheffield, B. B. (1991). The structured Orton-Gillingham-based strategies article to Kristin L. Sayeski, University of
flexibility of Orton-Gillingham. Annals of (unbranded). Washington, DC: U.S. Georgia, 517 Aderhold Hall, Athens, GA
Dyslexia, 41, 41–54. Department of Education, Institute 30602-7153 (e-mail: ksayeski@uga.edu).
Uhry, J. K., & Clark, D. B. (2005). Dyslexia: of Education Sciences. Retrieved
Theory and practice of remedial from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/ TEACHING Exceptional Children,
instruction (3rd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Docs/InterventionReports/wwc_ Vol. 51, No. 3, pp. 240–249.
York Press. ortongill_070110.pdf Copyright 2018 The Author(s).

Connect with SAGE

Channels feature news, current research,
podcasts, free content, and announcements
from your favorite SAGE journals.
• Criminology • Religion
• Education • Research Methods
• Management • Social Science
• Media & Communications • Social Work &
• Politics Social Policy
• Psychology • Sociology

Find out more at

sagepub.com/social

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN | JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2019 249

View publication stats