Orton Gillingham/ Multi Sensory Language / Structured Literacy approach

critical analysis

By Belinda Dekker and Julie Mavlian

Proponents of alternative therapies often attack the credibility of the Orton

Gillingham (OG) approach, MSL or Structured Literacy Instruction in order to

discredit our evidence based stance. Criticism of mainstream approaches is a

typical tactic of psuedoscience. In the interests of transparency the following

is a critical analysis of the Orton Gillingham approach, MSL or Structured Lit-

eracy applying the same red flags and warning signs that we have applied to

alternative therapies.

In Australia, the Orton Gillingham Approach is also known as Multisensory

Structured language approach (MSL), and more recently has been referred to

as Structured Literacy Instruction.

The problem with looking at and researching Orton Gillingham is that the pro-

grams vary which is actually one of its strengths so there is difficulty in re-

searching it as a whole. Unlike other reading programs, the OG method is not

scripted or rigid and allows flexibility. It is best implemented by individual ther-

apists and there is no strict adherence to OG methods.

The actual multi sensory component is just a small part of a much larger ped-

agogy. It is NOT a program. Because it is a pedagogy, it is virtually impossi-

ble to isolate because every teacher will approach students differently based

on their own unique literacy profile, that alone means that it is not applied the

same way in every student. It is individually tailored, as students will have

varying literacy needs. It is the knowledgable TEACHER that makes all the

difference in a truly OG/ MSL/ SL session.

There are also many OG based programs such as the Wilson Reading Sys-

tem® (WRS), Barton Reading System and Lindamood Phoneme

Sequencing® Program for Reading, Spelling, and Speech (LiPS®) that have

been researched for efficacy. Because all these programs have foundations

in OG but have variations they must be researched individually. "The Lin-

damood Phoneme Sequencing program has been scientifically validated in a

series of well-designed research studies.[8,11]." Current Status of Treatments

for Dyslexia: Critical Review Ann W. Alexander, MD; Anne-Marie Slinger-

Constant, MD J Child Neurol. 2004;19(10):744-758.

In light of the difficulties with an examination of OG we will examine it as MSL

or Structured Literacy as it has been more recently called by the International

Dyslexia Association. "The International Dyslexia Association (IDA) is the

oldest organization dedicated to the study and treatment of dyslexia. It is also

committed to providing complete information and services to address the full

scope of dyslexia and related reading and writing challenges. The IDA was

born in the 1920’s with direct roots to Dr. Samuel T. Orton’s pioneering stud-

ies in the field of reading research and multisensory teaching. In 1949, after

Dr. Orton’s death, June Orton, Dr. Orton’s wife and colleague, formalized the

Orton Society to continue this important work, train teachers and publish in-

structional materials." IDA

Several authors (Herbert, Sharp, & Gaudino, 2002; McWilliam, 1999; Park,

2003; Scheuermann & Evans, 1997; Simpson, 1995; Worrall, 1990), (supple-

mented by Neuroscientific interventions for dyslexia: red flags) concerned

with the uptake and use of interventions and therapies that may be regarded

as frauds or fads, have developed a set of 14 indicators that may serve as

warning signs that a practice has not been shown to be effective. We will ana-

lyse OG/MSL/SL using those same red flags indicators.

1. The practice is supported by anecdotes and testimonies, not by the re -

sults of scientific studies reported in refereed journals.

The International Dyslexia Association do not list any anecdotes or testi-

monies on their website. They do list success stories of prominent dyslexics.

They do not attribute this success to OG.

Reading research studies conducted over the past 70 years have included

the Orton-Gillingham method as a standard. Studies are as follows:

FOORMAN ET AL., 1997

OAKLAND ET AL., 1998

SILBERBERG ET AL., 1973

TORGESEN ET AL., 1999

VICKERY ET AL., 1987

Additional studies on Orton-Gillingham were conducted in 1940, 1956, 1969,

1979, and 1984

"This evidence-based treatment is the only method offering a complete inter-

vention, including writing instruction, and has been the forerunner in the field.

Unfortunately, there are few methodologically sound studies in peer-reviewed

journals to validate its efficacy. Quasi-experimental studies were published by

the International Multisensory Structured Language Education Council in

1995.[33] Many of the studies were hampered by either large, diverse groups

of subjects or by inadequate numbers of subjects, by gains being reported in

grade equivalents and not standard scores, by no long-term follow-up, and by

the absence of control groups." Current Status of Treatments for Dyslexia:

Critical Review Ann W. Alexander, MD; Anne-Marie Slinger-Constant, MD J

Child Neurol. 2004;19(10):744-758.

"Of all the reading programs specifically designed to help struggling readers

by explicitly teaching the connections between letters and sounds, Orton–

Gillingham was the first. And after many decades, it’s still the standard. To-

day, many reading programs include Orton–Gillingham ideas. Orton–Gilling-

ham has the most research of any program to support its approach. That’s

why many classroom teachers choose to use strategies from the program in

their reading instruction." Understood website

2. The practice is reported directly to the mass media and does not appear in

professional, refereed journals.

The International Dyslexia association do not advertise a program on mass

media to sell a product. This is not in keeping with their mission. "The Interna-

tional Dyslexia Association (IDA) is an international organization that con-

cerns itself with the complex issues of dyslexia. The IDA membership con-

sists of a variety of professionals in partnership with dyslexics and their fami-

lies and all others interested in The Association’s mission.

We believe that all individuals have the right to achieve their potential, that in-

dividual learning abilities can be strengthened and that social, educational

and cultural barriers to language acquisition and use must be removed.

The IDA actively promotes effective teaching approaches and related clinical

educational intervention strategies for dyslexics. We support and encourage

interdisciplinary research. We facilitate the exploration of the causes and

early identification of dyslexia and are committed to the responsible and wide

dissemination of research based knowledge." IDA mission statement

OG / MSL/ SL has all of recommended components by Shaywitz, by the

Rose Report and National Reading Panel recommendations.

3. The treatment recommended does not have a logical connection to the

presumed cause of the difficulty.

OG / MSL/ SL directly addresses the fundamental difficulties of dyslexia well

established by science. In order to treat dyslexia, you must address the par-

ticular skills required for effective reading and spelling. Dorothy Bishop ex-

plains the fallacy in treating unrelated skills and expecting them to transfer

into reading skills when she states, “as Rabbitt (2015, p 235) noted re-garding brain-training in general: "Many researchers have been frustrated to find that ability on any particular skill is surprisingly specific and often does not generalise even to other quite similar situations." There's little point in training children to type numbers into a computer rapidly if all that happens is that they get better at typing numbers into a computer. For this to be a viable educational strategy, you'd need to show that this skill had knock-on effects on other learning. That hasn't been done, and all the evidence from mainstream psychology suggests it would be unusual to see such transfer of training effects.”

"Individuals with dyslexia or a related difference require explicit, direct and

systematic instruction in both oral and written language. (National Reading

Panel 2006) (Australian Dyslexia Working Party document 2010) (National In-

quiry into the Teaching of Literacy) ." Australian Dyslexia Association (ADA)

Structured Language/ Literacy instruction has a logical connection to the pre-

sumed cause of the difficulty in that it gives direct instruction in phonology,

sound-symbol association, syllable instruction, morphology, syntax and se-

mantics. Structured literacy is distinctive in the principles that guide how criti-

cal elements are taught, these being; systematic and cumulative, explicit in-

struction and lastly diagnostic teaching.

"Dyslexia, or a reading disability, occurs when an individual has significant dif-

ficulty with speed and accuracy of word decoding. Comprehension of text and

spelling are also affected. " Perspectives on dyslexia

Linda S Siegel, PhD

"It is now clear that the major problem with dyslexia involves difficulties with

phonological processing, that is, being able to segment words into their com-

ponent sounds, and associate letters with their sounds and phonological

awareness (ie, the ability to segment speech into small parts, such as sylla-

bles, and the smallest units of sound, phonemes)." Linda S Siegel, PhD.

Therefore, these are the skills that must be directly addressed in reliable

literacy instruction.

4. The practice is not supported by established, related bodies of knowledge.

Structured literacy instruction is marked by several elements. There is a sub-

stantial and indisputable body of evidence and research to support the major

elements of the Structured Literacy approach. Refer to the IDA’s Effective

Reading Instruction recommendation http://eida.org/effective-reading-instruc-

tion/

Structured Literacy is also the recommended approach by Learning Difficul-

ties Australia in their “position Statement on Approaches to Reading Instruc-

tion Supoorted by LDA”, https://www.ldaustralia.org/client/documents/LDA

%20Position%20Statement.pdf

"The overall goal of the Orton-Gillingham Approach is to thoroughly train

teachers and tutors to teach students with severe reading disabilities to read

by explicitly and systematically breaking down the structure of the English

language. It is diagnostic and prescriptive. This program touches on all com-

ponents of reading with focused instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics

and fluency. Trainees of the Orton-Gillingham Approach are taught to use in-

formal assessments and data collected from each lesson to drive instruction

based on observable student need. " Florida Center for Reading Research

"Findings from the research evidence indicate that all students learn best

when teachers adopt an integrated approach to reading that explicitly teaches

phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary knowledge and compre-

hension." National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy in Australia (2005)

"Scientific evidence confirms that the most effective approach to teaching

reading is direct, systematic instruction in phonemic awareness, synthetic

phonics, vocabulary development, fluency, and comprehension." Molly De

Lemos, Learning Difficulties Australia (LDA)

The IDA acknowledge that the multisensory element is the only element that

is yet to be researched in detail. In their publication, Expert Perspectives on

Interventions for reading they describe their initiative on research in mulitisen-

sory teaching and learning.

Recognising the need first for a consensus on a definition of multisensory

teaching and learning and its theoretical frameworks based on scientific evi-

dence, IDA has created the Multisensory Instruction Research Initiative to

stimulate scientific investigation into how the components of multisensory

teaching and learning might or might not enhance the learning of reading-re-

lated skills.

This initiative has adopted scientific investigation of multisensory teaching

and learning in literacy acquisition as its major agenda. Although the value of

its clinical and classroom use has been known for over 75 years for students

with dyslexia and other struggling readers, the true nature of its efficacy and

an understanding of its individual components and subcomponents have yet

to be given scientific scrutiny. Studies on the multisensory aspects of the in-

terventions and remediation work with students are needed to provide the

missing evidentiary link. In other words, studies are needed to determine the

value of the multisensory aspect of the MSL approach when combined with

evidence-based instruction that directly and explicitly addresses the multiple

components of oral and written language in an integrated, systematic, and cu-

mulative approach with various populations of learners including those with

dyslexia. The new grant program will provide funds for research projects fo-

cused on multisensory instruction." For information on this initiative go to the

IDA web site at www.interdys.org

In summary, research supports the general conclusion that knowledge of the

structure of language, systematically and explicitly taught and learned within

a complete lesson framework that focuses on fluency, is important for begin-

ning and struggling readers. However, there is no scientific evidence behind

the multisensory component, emphasized by practitioners of multisensory

structured language education, and central to programs derived from the prin-

ciples of Orton-Gillingham instruction. Yet, its efficacy has been demonstrated

over and over again for students with dyslexia and other struggling learners in

independent and public school contexts as well as in clinical settings (Joshi,

Dahlgren, & Boulware-Gooden 2002). The need for discovering what Dr. Gor-

don F Sherman, chair of the Multisensory Instruction Research Initiative ,

calls the "mysteries of multisensory teaching and learning" in light of the

broad implications for instruction in this nation's public schools, which have

come to rely on evidence-based instruction, brings a new urgency to the Mul-

tisensory Instruction Research Initiative at IDA.

The principles of multisensory teaching and learning rest on a bedrock of

decades of clinical and classroom experience as the approach of choice for

reading instruction for students with dyslexia. The emphasis on the basic lan-

guage components of a comprehensive program along with the application of

direct, intensive, and systematic instruction parallels the consensus derived

from the science of reading on what and how to teach reading to beginners

and those struggling to learn. The future promises new knowledge and infor-

mation based on scientific evidence that will test the efficacy of the multisen-

sory components deemed essential in multisensory teaching and learning.

Page 53 & 54 Expert Perspectives on Interventions for Reading. A collection

of best practice articles from the international dyslexia Association. Edited by

Louisa C Moats,  Karen E Dakin and R. Malatesha Joshi. (2012)

"There is a growing body of evidence supporting multisensory teaching. Cur-

rent research, much of it supported by the National Institute of Child Health

and Human Development (NICHD), converges on the efficacy of explicit

structured language teaching for children with dyslexia. Young children in

structured, sequential, multisensory intervention programs, who were also

trained in phonemic awareness, made significant gains in decoding skills.

These multisensory approaches used direct, explicit teaching of letter-sound

relationships, syllable patterns, and meaning word parts. Studies in clinical

settings showed similar results for a wide range of ages and abilities." IDA

"In 2006, the National Reading Panel issued a landmark report focusing on

the critical years of kindergarten through third grade reading skills. After re-

viewing more than 100,000 reading research studies that met demanding cri-

teria, the panel analyzed the results of these studies and identified five skills

critical for all beginning readers: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vo-

cabulary and comprehension. The panel also suggested implications for

classroom instruction and proven strategies for teaching these skills. The re-

sults of this study aligned with decades of IDA evidence-based research."

IDA

"Learning Difficulties Australia (LDA) supports approaches to reading instruc-

tion that adopt an explicit structured approach to the teaching of reading and

are consistent with the scientific evidence as to how children learn to read

and how best to teach them. This approach is important for all children, but is

particularly important for children who have difficulty in learning to read. Pro-

grams that follow an explicit structured approach to the teaching of reading in-

clude as an integral part of the teaching program specific instruction in

phonology (phonological and phonemic awareness), sound-symbol associa-

tions (letter-sound correspondences), as well as syllable structures, morphol-

ogy, syntax and semantics (the structure, use and meaning of words) as a

basis for developing accurate and fluent word reading and reading compre-

hension. " LDA position statement

5. Proponents claim they are conspired against by the “ establishment ”.

The reputation of the International Dyslexia Association is well established

therefore they are the establishment. Samuel Orton is a well respected pio-

neer in the field of reading disability.

6. Proponents make exaggerated claims about effectiveness and may claim

to cure a condition.

The IDA base all claims on research and readily highlight areas where more

research is needed. The approach was developed out of extensive reading

research. It is not a quick fix or a cure nor does it claim to be.

"Alternative therapies for reading difficulties, ''generally have a weak (or non-

existent) evidence base and poor efficacy, and often rely on the superficial at-

tractiveness of a promised instant (and comparatively effortless) ‘cure’'. Sin-

gleton

7. The practice should be used exclusively.

To be registered with the IDA intensive and lengthy training must be under-

taken. Members are not restricted to the use of OG as an exclusive program

as it is a teaching approach. The IDA website states, “The identification of individuals with dyslexia and other reading difficulties, and appro-priate instruction by a well-trained teacher using a structured ap-proach to teaching reading, has been a cornerstone of IDA since its beginning. The components of Structured Literacy are outlined in the IDA Knowledge and Practice Standards for Teachers of Reading.

8. The treatment is very intense.

To facilitate automaticity frequent tutoring sessions are required to remediate

areas of weakness. This will be dependent on financial commitment and fol-

low up of parents at home. The length of time needed is dependent on the in-

dividual, the complexity and the severity of their difficulties.

9. Legal action has been taken over the treatment.

Like any reputable organisation the IDA has accepted criticism of the lack of

research of the multisensory element and is currently working to address this

issue. "IDA has launched a bold and challenging research initiative. Its pur-

pose is to shed light—via vigorous scientific investigation—on the value of the

multisensory component in MSL reading instruction, particularly for students

with dyslexia. The immediate goal of this competitive grant program is to fund

replicable studies with promise for stimulating research on a larger scale. It

will be difficult to isolate the effects of the multisensory component (make that

components), the primary reason this research has yet to be conducted. Lack

of funding has been another obstacle." IDA’s Multisensory Research Grant

Program: A Bold and Challenging Initiative by Carolyn D. Cowen, Ed.M

As previously mentioned, Gordon Sherman, past president of the IDA has

been appointed the chair of the research grant program.

10. Intervention developed by someone with no academic credentials. What

you should look for here are relevant qualifications, particularly a higher de-

gree (preferably doctorate) from an academic institution with a good reputa-

tion

"Samuel Torrey Orton (1879–1948), a neuropsychiatrist and pathologist

(graduated from Harvard) at Columbia University, brought together neurosci-

entific information and principles of remediation. As early as the 1920s, he

had extensively studied children with the kind of language processing difficul-

ties now commonly associated with dyslexia and had formulated a set of

teaching principles and practices for such children." Wikipedia

Orton was the first modern neuropathologist to recognize the harm that the

new whole-word, or sight-word method, of teaching reading was having on

children. He was a Pioneer in the field of dyslexia and reading research. Mod-

ern research has supported his findings.

"Anna Gillingham (1878–1963) was an educator and psychologist at Teach-

ers College, Columbia University. Working with Dr. Orton, she trained teach-

ers and compiled and published instructional materials. Gillingham combined

Orton’s teaching methods with her analysis of the structure of the English/

American language and with Bessie Stillman, she wrote what has become the

Orton–Gillingham manual: Remedial Training for Children with Specific Dis-

ability in Reading, Spelling and Penmanship. First published in 1935/6, this

work is updated and republished regularly." Wikipedia

The IDA’s recommended Structured literacy instruction is the result of

decades of cumulative research by a wide variety of experts in the field of lit-

eracy and dyslexia instruction.

11. It is implausible that the whole gamut of neurodevelopmental problems

has a single underlying cause, and it is unlikely that they will all respond to

the same intervention. If an intervention claims to be effective for a host of di-

verse disorders, then this is a red flag.

MSL / Structured Literacy is an instructional approach, or pedagogy, intended

primarily for use with persons who have difficulty with reading, spelling, and

writing of the sort associated with dyslexia and because it's foundation is in

the science of learning to read, it is applicable to the teaching of reading to all

students.

12. The organisation uses invented terms that sound “sciencey” or co-opt real

science terms and apply them incorrectly. People use pseudoscientific lan-

guage to try to fool their audience into believing their ideas have scientific sta-

tus. There would be no need to resort to false terminology if their ideas were

supported by evidence from real-world testing.

The ADA, IDA and LDA use terminology as appropriate to dyslexia and spe-

cific reading disabilities, it is devoid of unnecessary pseudoscientific lan-

guage.

13. Does the organisation try to convince by quoting some ‘authority’ who

agrees with their claims and pointing to that person’s status, position or quali-

fications, instead of producing real-world evidence? The tactic is known as

the argument from authority.

Samuel Orton was a leading authority on dyslexia and reading. OG was de-

veloped directly out of his pioneering research. Many researchers have since

contributed to this growing body of evidence that have been published in peer

reviewed journals. The IDA provide a source of professional information to its

members via reputable peer reviewed information sources such as, The An-

nals of Dyslexia, as well as through its professional publication, Perspectives

on Language and Literacy.

14. Science follows the evidence wherever it leads. Pseudoscience starts

with a conclusion and works to proving it.

The MSL/ Structured Language Approach to reading instruction is based on

the work of Dr. Samuel T. Orton and was developed into a remedial program

manual by Anna Gillingham and Bessie Stillman, this has evolved into the

IDA’s recommended practice of structured language, with knowledge ob-

tained from continuous practice, data and research.

Conclusions

The OG MSL/SL approach is recommended by the IDA and its Global Part-

ners, including the ADA and AUSPELD (The Australian Federation of SPELD

Foundations),here in Australia. It is also recommended practice by Learning

Difficulties Australia, The British Dyslexia Association, The Wrightslaw Way to

Special Education Law and Advocacy and many other highly reputable organ-

isations.

Maggie Snowling,PhD,a British psychologist, Fellow of the British Academy

and of the Academy of Medical Sciences, and known for her work in the field

of dyslexia, describes what needs to be done in terms of dyslexia intervention

in the following paragraph;

“A good starting point for developing an intervention is understanding the

causes of a disorder. Indeed, targeting of impaired processes provides the

theoretical motivation for the design and content of an intervention. Unfortu-

nately, the field of dyslexia is plagued with supposed ‘cures’ that have no

proper evidence base. It is therefore important for professionals to critically

review the content of available programmes to ensure their suit- ability. A

useful website developed to complement the Rose Review is http://www.inter-

ventionsforliteracy.org.uk/ schools/

However, to choose an effective programme or approach, what professionals

require is good understanding of the principles of interventions and their suit-

ability for different children. Snowling and Hulme (2011) reviewed the ingredi-

ents of evidence-based interventions for language and literacy difficulties.

They concluded that it is a good practice to ensure that interventions are sys-

tematic, well structured and multi-sensory, and that they incorporate direct

teaching, learning and time for consolidation, with frequent revision to take

account of the likely limited attention and learning difficulties of the child. For

dyslexia, effective interventions should include training in letter sounds, pho-

neme awareness, and linking letters and phonemes through writing and read-

ing from texts at the appropriate level to reinforce emergent skills. In contrast,

poor comprehenders require a different ‘diet’ attuned to their needs and can

benefit from training in oral language skills particularly vocabulary training

(Clarke et al., 2010: http:// readingformeaning.co.uk/). Of course, it is impor-

tant to bear in mind that many children will have problems with decoding and

comprehension, in which case a mixed approach is needed.”

The LDA Published a position statement titled approaches to reading instruc-

tion supported by the LDA. It is critical to note what that statement says in re-

lation to various programs based on the Orton Gillingham approach. LDA

state that "examples of programs that follow an explicit structured approach

to the teaching of reading include but are not limited to program such as,

Jolly Phonics, Read Write Inc, Sounds Write, Get Reading Right, Interna-

tional Phonics, the Multi-Lit suite of programs, the DI Reading Mastery and

Corrective Reading programs and the various programs based on the Orton

Gillingham approach." It is equally critical to note "LDA does not support or

endorse programs that place emphasis on the exercise or training of underly-

ing brain processes including working memory as the basis for improving

reading or other academic skills. Such programs include Brain Gym Fast For-

Word, Cogmed and the Arrowsmith program. " LDA Bulletin Volume 47, No 2,

Winter 2015. Page 13.

AUSPELD, in their recent publication "Understanding Learning Difficulties",

States that interventions for learning disorders should target the component

skills of reading spelling and mathematics and writing not other areas of func-

tioning. They specifically state direct instruction programs and structured syn-

thetic phonics programs are valuable in the treatment of learning difficulties,

including reading disorders. OG and MSL instruction falls under both of these

categories.

"AUSPELD has proudly been recognised as a Global Partner of the Interna-

tional Dyslexia Association. This partnership provides unique opportunities for

collaboration with international colleagues in the field of dyslexia and literacy,

from research to practice. As a Global Partner of IDA, AUSPELD has joined a

community of educational professionals and others who are committed to col-

laboration, providing research-based information and professional support for

those with Dyslexia or specific language–based learning disabilities." AUS-

PELD

We are under no illusion that OG MSL/SL are perfect approaches. We are

also very aware of the complexity of reading and spelling difficulties and it's

multiple and often complex causes. We are also very aware that NO interven-

tion can claim to help 100% of learners, however there are many out there

that do make such grandiose claims. We state in the group guidelines that we

support the work of reputable not-for-profit organisations such as IDA, ADA,

BDA, AUSPELD, SPELDS in each state, and reputable Universities, aca-

demics and researchers such as Macquarie Uni.

We are guided by the research and information of these highly reputable or-

ganisations who are at the forefront of dyslexia and literacy advocacy and re-

search. It is because such reputable organisations such these support OG

and MSL that we do too.

"Teachers not programs teach students to read. We can put good programs

in the hands of teachers who do not understand what to do with them and re-

ally get no results." Louisa Moats. The IDA and global partners strive in their

mission to educate teachers in the appropriate research based methods of

teaching reading. We advocate the improvement of teacher training in Aus-

tralia so every child benefits from excellent reading instruction and best prac-

tice. We advocate the implementation of evidence based teaching practices

as recommended by the National Reading panel (2006), National Inquiry into

the Teaching of Literacy (2005), and the Independent review of the teaching

of early reading (2006).

It is for these reasons that we recommend OG MSL/SL interventions deliv-

ered by suitably qualified professionals.