I’m interested in hearing from people trained in both Phono-Graphix and Orton-Gillingham. In terms of effectiveness and long-term success, how do they compare? Do you prefer one method over the other for certain children? I have been unable to find research that looks at the long-term success of P-G. How are those children doing 3 or 4 years after P-G?
Thanks for any info.
Pam
I don’t have your answer, but you might want to contact Steve T. up in Canada.
I just noticed that Steve Truch is making
a presentation on Thurs., November 13th. “Remedial Outcomes
Using
LIPS and Phono-Graphix” at the International Dyslexia
Conference in San Diego which I plan to attend.
I think his website is www.readingfoundation.com could be foundations.com
I think he is working on some kind of PG spin off incorporating fluency, comprehension, and vocabulary. He might be able to give you solid research. And when you find any answers, please share back what you find as many of us would love to learn more.
Keep in mind that PG is good for decoding and does not touch on the other areas of fluency, voc. and comprehesion, so it does complicate the findings because PG is not an “entire” program only part of it, so other programs need to be used in conjunction with PG in the school settings. Teachers don’t just stop once the kid can decode. Other programs such as Read Naturally or Great LEaps are used for fluecy and things like Visualizing / Verbalizing for comprehension. PG only covers one or 2 state standards out of 8 in reading. So finding a good study might be tricky. Good luck.
Good research is hard to find and it is too bad the program authors haven’t worked hard in that area as it sure would be handy.
Meanwhile, I’m signing up to see Steve in San Diego.
Michelle AZ