Orton-Gillingham and Orton-Gillingham-Based Reading Instruction: A Review of the Literature

Orton-Gillingham (OG) and Orton-Gillingham-based reading instructional programs are commonly implemented reading programs in the United States. Twelve studies that employed quasi-experimental or experimental designs are reviewed. These studies included elementary students, adolescents, and college students. Of the 12 studies, 5 reported that the OG instruction was more effective than were comparison or control interventions for all measured outcomes, 4 reported that the OG instruction was more effective for at least 1 (but not all) outcomes in comparison to other intervention(s), 2 reported that the alternate instruction was more effective than the OG instruction, and 1 reported no significant differences once covariates were included. The largest effects were reported for word attack and non-word reading outcomes, with mean effect size of .82, and comprehension outcomes, with a mean effect size of .76. Following a summary of each study, limitations of the current review and implications for future research and practice are described. Given the small number of studies, the lack of methodological rigor of the existing studies, and the inconclusive findings of the effectiveness of OG programs, additional research is needed before the scientific basis can be established

An Analysis of First-Grade Writing Profiles and Their Relationship to Compositional Quality

To help all students meet the writing expectations of the Common Core State Standards, researchers need a deeper understanding of the characteristics of struggling writers. The purpose of this study was to explore the writing profiles of students including those who have or are at risk for writing disabilities. First-grade students (N = 391) were assessed at the end of the school year using three writing assessments (spelling, sentence writing fluency, writing achievement). The researchers used latent profile analysis to identify students as fitting into one of five profiles (At Risk, Low Fluency, Low Writing, Average, and Above Average). Students also wrote narrative and descriptive texts that were scored multiple ways. The researchers used confirmatory factor analysis to identify four common factors: quality/length, spelling, mechanics, and syntax. Students in the At Risk profile wrote narratives and descriptions that scored lower on all aspects of writing when compared to students in the Average and Above Average profiles. These findings provide further evidence of the distinct difference among writers as early as first grade, and they offer insight into the characteristics of at-risk writers. The implications of these findings for instruction and assessment and directions for future research are described