Curious as to the similarities and differences between, PG, LMB, Wilson, Orton-G. What is used for what. I have only used the PG program and really have only a limited amount of knowledge of the others. Could someone sum it up for me? Thanks,
Re: Complex question, maybe?
I’ve only had hands-on experience with LMB, Orton and Wilson, but of the three, I’d say LMB has the advantage of the “kinesthetic” approach, in that you go back over and over to how the sounds “feel” rather than how they sound. For many LD kids, this is crucial, I can’t count the number of times I’ve been told, “But those two sound the same to me!” Usually they are talking about /e/ and /i/ but many mix up other sounds as well. I never knew what to say to that, until I learned LMB, and that there is a difference you can feel between those two vowels, even if you can’t hear it. At least until the sound/symbol connections and automaticity starts to develop, I feel this is a real crucial step for the LD learner… I also like the “blocks” practice that is crucial to the development of auditory processing and sequencing, I feel that is the crux of the method, and why it does make a difference for LD kids. My students at the school where I teach groan every time I bring out the blocks (which I do almost daily) but I offer lots of rewards for doing it right, and eventually they catch on. When they do, that’s when we begin to see the big gains, so I say, you can’t argue with what works…
Sharon
Thanks so much ladies!!
Great job in answering my question. Thank you again Sharon and Sue J….rebecca faye
They’re all used to teach reading, and all focus on developing the “sound-symbol connection” — seeing letters and knowing what speech sounds should be associated with them. The O=G programs (including WIlson) and LMB are more structured and systematic, and stress teaching to “automaticity,” using a variety of multisensory techniques. LMB brings in speech/language strategies and techniques, as well as Socratic discovery of langauge patterns.
For many students, the quick and direct PG gets them on the road to reading with a wonderful efficiency. Others really do need that intensity and lots more review. Until I saw the long-term results of the automaticity emphasis, I would have considered it a waste of time — I’m the quick creative type. However, I couldn’t argue with what I saw over the course of five years — the teachers who were most methodical and thorough and included regular drill and review — always very quick, but consistent — kept having the best results. THe very severely dyslexic students tended to take a while to get momentum, but it happened.