Biomedical Research and Mentoring Program: Finding a Biomarker for Dyslexia
Spring Semester 2015
During Spring Semester of 2015, I participated in a research program through the Honors Program that placed me in the the lab of Tzipi Horowitz-Kraus, PhD, working jointly with the Reading and Literacy Discovery Center and the Pediatric Neuroimaging Consortium, in Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center. I worked specifically on writing and submitting a paper for publication, titled "The Effect of Orton Gillingham Training in Children in 1st-7th grade with reading difficulties". I've included a few sections of my work on this paper. The entire paper cannot yet be included on this website because it was just recently submitted for publication! (Which I am very excited about!). Below that, you will also find my PowerPoint presentation, which I presented at a reception for the participants in this program and their mentors.
Title Page
Introduction
Orton Gillingham
Orton Gillingham (OG) is a reading intervention program designed in the 1960s by Samuel Orton and Anna Gillingham to develop oral reading and silent reading skills in children with reading difficulties (RD). This program, and programs based on OG principles, approaches intervention as a “systematic, sequential, multisensory, synthetic, and phonics based approach to teaching reading” (Giess et al. 2012, page 2 line 22). At its most basic level, the OG approach utilizes the language triangle- visual, auditory, and kinesthetic/ tactile pathways (Giess et al. 2012). Phonology, as well as awareness of phonology, is taught to children with RD by teaching and monitoring progress of a ladder of reading skills, starting with groups of letters and moving on to how these sounds correspond to each other and blend to form words when the child displays mastery of each group. Students learn to read and spell both actual words and nonsense words, first with tiles, and then on paper. Children then progress to reading and writing phrases. Reading fluency and accuracy is then targeted using program texts. The instructor dictates a word, which the child then repeats, spells with blocks while saying it, tapping out vowel sounds, saying the word slowly, emphasizing phonological parts of the word, blends the sounds present in the word, says it the correct speed, and then uses finger spelling (Geiss et al 2012). This multisensory approach has been shown to be particularly useful for children with RD (Rose and Zirkel, 2007). Because of initial success with this program, at a time when no such programs were in widespread existence in schools, as well as anecdotal evidence of the result of this program (Rose and Zirkel, 2007) the OG method and programs based on it continue to successful in schools to this day (Rose and Zirkel, 2007). Despite half a century of widespread use in schools, very little empirical evidence exists supporting this program. Even less scientifically based information are available, including comparisons to other programs and statistically relevant discrepancies between OG and other reading interventions (Giess et al., 2012).
Evidence of the effect of OG in children
The main body of evidence supporting the OG method has been anecdotal (Rose and Zirkel, 2007). Success stories from parents and teachers, as well as widespread support of the program from schools has instilled confidence in educators and legislators regarding continued implementation of the program (Rose and Zirkel, 2007). However, there is little empirical evidence supporting the superiority of the OG program over other reading intervention programs. The studies that do exist tend not to agree as to the effect of the program on reading skills in children with RD (Giess et al., 2012). Among the studies showing slight improvements in children using the OG method, Giess and colleagues demonstrated greater improvement in reading rate in 13-18 year old children in juvenile detention facilities who underwent OG for 90 minutes a day, five days a week compared to a group who trained on another reading intervention program for the same amount of time (Giess et al., 2012). However, including children in juvenile detention facilities resulted in incomplete post-testing data. Another study showed that an OG based program (named “The Wilson Reading System”) was more effective in teaching reading, spelling, and phonological awareness skills than a non-phonetic group and the control group (Wilson, 1996). However, other researchers demonstrated contradicting results: a study comparing an OG based program, (named “Alphabet Phonics”) and a non-OG approach focusing on comprehension skills, reading efficiency skills, reading efficiency, study skills, and test taking strategies showed that students who were normal readers enrolled in a community college in the non-OG program had better performance on posttest measures than students in the OG based group (Chandler et al 1993). Discrepancies such as these in studies show the need for a standardized method of assessing reading ability. The author concluded that OG programs must be evaluated more completely and empirically in order to determine their efficacy.
Another challenge of using OG, is that it covers all domains in reading (Morris et al., 1990) indiscriminately. Recent studies pointed at “subtypes” of children with reading difficulties (RD); where some children suffer mainly from fluency challenges (Morris et al., 1990), reading comprehension (Morris et al., 1990) or phonological processing difficulties (Morris et al., 1990) and it seems that different attention should be given to each of these domains. Can it be that spending precious time on all domains of reading instead of focusing on the critical deficit of the child, and less on the other intact domains may cause an additional delay in reading improvement?
OG programs are widespread in their use in schools across the United States and internationally (Bartolo et al., 2005). This program is an intensive and costly intervention, requiring both the financial and personnel resources to provide one on one training daily for children with RD. Parents often request OG or OG-based programs for their children, and have been found to win lawsuits suing school districts for the right to have this method available under Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (Rose and Zirkel, 2007). However, there is a distinct lack of empirical evidence supporting the efficacy of the OG method, particularly in comparison to the myriad of daily intervention programs available. Most supporters of the program, including many parents of children with RD, base their opinions off of word of mouth testimonials and how far reaching the programs are (Rose and Zirkel, 2007).
A wider, as well as more experimental, base of knowledge is required to examine the impact OG has on the reading skills of children with RD (Giess et al., 2012). There is also a need to investigate the most effective method of implementation of reading intervention programs in schools (Rose and Zirkel, 2007), as current methods are extremely variable from one school to the other.
There is a federal requirement for scientifically based reading research [No Child Left Behind, 2002, Part B, Subpart 1, Section 1208 (6)(A)] that has not been upheld or examined in the case of OG (Rose and Zirkel, 2007). Given the massive amounts of money, time, and personnel devoted towards this method, as well as the significant portion of students who struggle with RD, the aim of the current study is to determine the effect of OG training in children with RD compared to age-matched group of children with RD who train on other reading interventions for the same time and intensity on oral and silent reading measures. We hypothesized that both children who trained on OG and children who trained on other every day interventions in school will show reading improvement. We also hypothesized that no difference in gains in reading skills will be found between groups. We speculated that greater gains in oral reading will be found in both groups due to the intensive oral reading practice done when training with a tutor.
Final Presentation:
Title Page
Introduction
Orton Gillingham
Orton Gillingham (OG) is a reading intervention program designed in the 1960s by Samuel Orton and Anna Gillingham to develop oral reading and silent reading skills in children with reading difficulties (RD). This program, and programs based on OG principles, approaches intervention as a “systematic, sequential, multisensory, synthetic, and phonics based approach to teaching reading” (Giess et al. 2012, page 2 line 22). At its most basic level, the OG approach utilizes the language triangle- visual, auditory, and kinesthetic/ tactile pathways (Giess et al. 2012). Phonology, as well as awareness of phonology, is taught to children with RD by teaching and monitoring progress of a ladder of reading skills, starting with groups of letters and moving on to how these sounds correspond to each other and blend to form words when the child displays mastery of each group. Students learn to read and spell both actual words and nonsense words, first with tiles, and then on paper. Children then progress to reading and writing phrases. Reading fluency and accuracy is then targeted using program texts. The instructor dictates a word, which the child then repeats, spells with blocks while saying it, tapping out vowel sounds, saying the word slowly, emphasizing phonological parts of the word, blends the sounds present in the word, says it the correct speed, and then uses finger spelling (Geiss et al 2012). This multisensory approach has been shown to be particularly useful for children with RD (Rose and Zirkel, 2007). Because of initial success with this program, at a time when no such programs were in widespread existence in schools, as well as anecdotal evidence of the result of this program (Rose and Zirkel, 2007) the OG method and programs based on it continue to successful in schools to this day (Rose and Zirkel, 2007). Despite half a century of widespread use in schools, very little empirical evidence exists supporting this program. Even less scientifically based information are available, including comparisons to other programs and statistically relevant discrepancies between OG and other reading interventions (Giess et al., 2012).
Evidence of the effect of OG in children
The main body of evidence supporting the OG method has been anecdotal (Rose and Zirkel, 2007). Success stories from parents and teachers, as well as widespread support of the program from schools has instilled confidence in educators and legislators regarding continued implementation of the program (Rose and Zirkel, 2007). However, there is little empirical evidence supporting the superiority of the OG program over other reading intervention programs. The studies that do exist tend not to agree as to the effect of the program on reading skills in children with RD (Giess et al., 2012). Among the studies showing slight improvements in children using the OG method, Giess and colleagues demonstrated greater improvement in reading rate in 13-18 year old children in juvenile detention facilities who underwent OG for 90 minutes a day, five days a week compared to a group who trained on another reading intervention program for the same amount of time (Giess et al., 2012). However, including children in juvenile detention facilities resulted in incomplete post-testing data. Another study showed that an OG based program (named “The Wilson Reading System”) was more effective in teaching reading, spelling, and phonological awareness skills than a non-phonetic group and the control group (Wilson, 1996). However, other researchers demonstrated contradicting results: a study comparing an OG based program, (named “Alphabet Phonics”) and a non-OG approach focusing on comprehension skills, reading efficiency skills, reading efficiency, study skills, and test taking strategies showed that students who were normal readers enrolled in a community college in the non-OG program had better performance on posttest measures than students in the OG based group (Chandler et al 1993). Discrepancies such as these in studies show the need for a standardized method of assessing reading ability. The author concluded that OG programs must be evaluated more completely and empirically in order to determine their efficacy.
Another challenge of using OG, is that it covers all domains in reading (Morris et al., 1990) indiscriminately. Recent studies pointed at “subtypes” of children with reading difficulties (RD); where some children suffer mainly from fluency challenges (Morris et al., 1990), reading comprehension (Morris et al., 1990) or phonological processing difficulties (Morris et al., 1990) and it seems that different attention should be given to each of these domains. Can it be that spending precious time on all domains of reading instead of focusing on the critical deficit of the child, and less on the other intact domains may cause an additional delay in reading improvement?
OG programs are widespread in their use in schools across the United States and internationally (Bartolo et al., 2005). This program is an intensive and costly intervention, requiring both the financial and personnel resources to provide one on one training daily for children with RD. Parents often request OG or OG-based programs for their children, and have been found to win lawsuits suing school districts for the right to have this method available under Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (Rose and Zirkel, 2007). However, there is a distinct lack of empirical evidence supporting the efficacy of the OG method, particularly in comparison to the myriad of daily intervention programs available. Most supporters of the program, including many parents of children with RD, base their opinions off of word of mouth testimonials and how far reaching the programs are (Rose and Zirkel, 2007).
A wider, as well as more experimental, base of knowledge is required to examine the impact OG has on the reading skills of children with RD (Giess et al., 2012). There is also a need to investigate the most effective method of implementation of reading intervention programs in schools (Rose and Zirkel, 2007), as current methods are extremely variable from one school to the other.
There is a federal requirement for scientifically based reading research [No Child Left Behind, 2002, Part B, Subpart 1, Section 1208 (6)(A)] that has not been upheld or examined in the case of OG (Rose and Zirkel, 2007). Given the massive amounts of money, time, and personnel devoted towards this method, as well as the significant portion of students who struggle with RD, the aim of the current study is to determine the effect of OG training in children with RD compared to age-matched group of children with RD who train on other reading interventions for the same time and intensity on oral and silent reading measures. We hypothesized that both children who trained on OG and children who trained on other every day interventions in school will show reading improvement. We also hypothesized that no difference in gains in reading skills will be found between groups. We speculated that greater gains in oral reading will be found in both groups due to the intensive oral reading practice done when training with a tutor.
Final Presentation: