Direct instruction and Orton-Gillingham reading methodologies

Abstract

Despite the efforts to improve the reading achievement of students with dyslexia and other language based learning disabilities in recent years, little progress has been made towards increasing the reading proficiency of this population of students and closing the achievement gap between students identified as having a disability, as compared to typically developing peers. Given the importance of reading proficiency, it is imperative that educators use the most effective curriculum and interventions possible. Yet, most special educators continue to rely upon teacher made and selected materials along with trade books for teaching reading. The Orton-Gillingham-based reading pedagogy has been used in the United States since the 1930's to teach students with learning disabilities. However, due to a lack of published research the pedagogy has been relegated to the status of unscientifically proven, and few public schools are able to implement the methodology with their struggling students due to NCLB and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) mandates to use only curriculum and methodologies that are scientifically proven. In addition, while there are over forty years of research to support the use of scripted Direct Instruction programs as one of the most effective instructional methods for at-risk students, few studies have specifically looked at the effectiveness with students identified as having dyslexia or other language based learning disabilities. There is a need to address the significant gap in the literature regarding the effectiveness of these methodologies with students identified as having learning disabilities in reading. By employing a quasi-experimental design, and implementing the two intervention curricula for a ten-week period, and assessing reading achievement pre and post-test using Measures of Academic Progress - Reading (MAP-R), one-way ANCOVA was used to compare the adjusted means of the reading performance variables. While the quantitative data in this study failed to provide clear and statistically significant results showing one curriculum to be more effective than the other, the qualitative data from open-ended interviews of the teachers and paraeducators in the study provided insight into the educators' experiences implementing the intervention curricula with students. The themes that surfaced from these interviews offer insight for future development of reading intervention curriculum, as they provide awareness of the importance that educators place upon scaffolding and multi-sensory learning opportunities in educational materials, as well as the student-teacher relationship, for students with learning disabilities. Further, the interview findings suggest the need for on-going support of teachers and paraeducators as they implement new curricula, so that they may overcome any implementation challenges and successfully implement the materials with full fidelity.