Reporter Jill Barshay on effective remedial reading

What if Orton-Gillingham actually isn't particularly effective?

Over on the venerable Hechinger Report 10 October 2022, Jill Barshay published an article in the “PROOF POINTS” series explaining that two studies had revealed that the famous “Orton-Gillingham method” might not be as effective as its advocates claim. Because the “O-G method” has something of a strong following, this may come as a bit of a shock to some readers.

I encourage us all to think about the reasearch Ms. Barshay presents dispassionately. One of the especially valuable features of Ms. Barshay’s article, “PROOF POINTS: Leading dyslexia treatment isn’t a magic bullet, studies find, while other options show promise: New research evidence is at odds with views of many dyslexia advocates and state policies,” is that she reports about what might not be effective, but she also follows the evidence and points to remedial interventions that probably are effective.

Here’s are the first two paragraphs of Ms. Barshay’s article:

In 2019, a grassroots campaign led by parents succeeded in passing a wave of dyslexia legislation. Many states mandated hallmarks of the Orton-Gillingham method, specifically calling for “multisensory” instruction, to help students with dyslexia read and write better.* In New York, where I live, the city spends upwards of $300 million a year in taxpayer funds on private school tuition for children with disabilities. Much of it goes to pay for private schools that specialize in Orton-Gillingham instruction and similar approaches, which families insist are necessary to teach their children with dyslexia to read.

But two recent academic papers, synthesizing dozens of reading studies, are raising questions about the effectiveness of these expensive education policies. A review of 24 studies on the Orton-Gillingham method, published in the July 2021 issue of the peer-reviewed journal Exceptional Children, found no statistically significant benefit for children with dyslexia. Instead, suggesting a way forward, a review of 53 reading studies, led by University of Virginia researcher Colby Hall and published online September 2022 in Reading Research Quarterly, found that much cheaper reading interventions for children with a variety of reading difficulties were also quite effective for children with dyslexia.

One of the research articles to which Ms. Barshay points in her article is by Elizabeth Stevens and colleagues (2021) and it was published in the journal that I edit, Exceptional Children. The other, by Colby Hall and colleagues (2022) is by people at my former employer, the University of Virginia. I note this so that readers will be aware of my bias, but I hasten to note that my bias is for evidence, research. Readers are welcome—even encouraged—to consult the original sources. That is, I contend that any bias on my part is open to reasoned examination…so I consider such bias insignificant.

Here’s something that I do find significant. Ms. Barshay’s analysis pursues the topic. She doesn’t simply say something like, “OG isn’t as hot as people say it is.” She reports interviews with the authors of the papers she cites as well as other authorities (e.g, Emily Solari, Maryanne Wolf).

And, she synthesizes across studies. Here’s a key paragraph.

The good news is that most of the 53 reading interventions [examined in Hall et al, 2022] were effective and they had more similarities than differences. They were administered to children as either one-to-one tutoring sessions or in small groups. And they tended to provide direct, explicit step-by-step reading and writing instruction which includes not just traditional phonics but practice with clusters of letters, tricky vowel patterns and sounds. This is in sharp contrast with a teaching approach based on the belief that children can learn to read naturally if they are surrounded by books at their reading level and get lots of independent reading and writing time.

Folks, I could go on, but let me encourage you to read Ms. Barshay’s article (see sources). It may be an 8-mnute read, but I suspect many teachers, parents, and researchers will find that it flies by them…a very sensible analysis.

Sources

Barshay, J. (2022-10-10). PROOF POINTS: Leading dyslexia treatment isn’t a magic bullet, studies find, while other options show promise: New research evidence is at odds with views of many dyslexia advocates and state policies. Hechinger Report, https://hechingerreport.org/proof-points-leading-dyslexia-treatment-isnt-a-magic-bullet-studies-show-while-other-options-show-promise/

Hall, C., Dahl‐Leonard, K., Cho, E., Solari, E. J., Capin, P., Conner, C. L., Henry, A. Ra., Cook, L, Hayes, L., Vargas, I, Ricmond, C. L. & Kehoe, K. F. (2022). Forty years of reading intervention research for elementary students with or at risk for dyslexia: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Reading Research Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.477

Stevens, E. A., Austin, C., Moore, C., Scammacca, N., Boucher, A. N., & Vaughn, S. (2021). Current state of the evidence: Examining the effects of Orton-Gillingham reading interventions for students with or at risk for word-level reading disabilities. Exceptional Children, 87(4), 397-417.