Like many of you, my graduate degree did little to assist me in teaching reading to my students. Currently I teach reading by following an Orton-Gillingham hierarchy of skills, but using whatever I can get my hands on or can afford at a given point in time, including PGX, SPIRE, etc. I’ve not had any formal training in any approach, however.
Currently, my district is really pushing Direct Instruction (SRA Corrective Reading. Reasoning & Writing, etc.), and the instructors in the graduate courses I am taking this summer are really down on O-G and believe that Direct Instruction is the only way to go.
My bias is toward additional training in the O-G methods, but if DI is more effective, obviously the needs of my students come before my personal biases. However, I’ve had students come to my school with YEARS of Reasoning and Writing who cannot formulate a paragraph without a picture prompt. The skills just don’t seem to transfer outside of the structure of the program.
I know that this is a highly controversial area, but just wondered what your thoughts might be.
Thanks for your input,
KarenAnne
Re: O-G type instruction vs. DI
Karen:
<>
SRA Corrective Reading is a good group program—no doubt. But, I personally have not found that it works with our more severe LD children. About four years ago, I purchased the Corrective Reading to address the needs of my LD kids. But the student who needed it the most made no progress whatsoever with it. I had another student the year after who was severely dyslexic (at least I think he was), and he made no progress either. Both of these students needed a slower paced program that addressed their auditory sequencing deficits, such as OG. I started tutoring both of these students individually. However, since I was unable to tutor them during the school day, they made very limited progress, because they only came once or twice a week, depending upon their after-school interests.
So, my advice to you would be to go for the additional training in O-G, and be able to use it with those students who do not make it with DI. Another excellent program that you can use to supplement DI, is the SEEING STARS published by Lindamood-Bell. That is just as easy to use in a group as DI. Also the SEEING STARS addresses the spelling as well, which DI does not do.
My school uses DI as well, and all the Special Ed. and reg. ed. students have are grouped together, according to their levels, and then I teach Seeing Stars during their resource time. So, they get both.
Marilyn
Re: O-G type instruction vs. DI
I have used both and have found that each program has its merits. Brighter dyslexic kids tend to comprehend the rules of OG better than others and can be very successful. Corrective reading has been great for kids who needs lots of repitition and practice. Corrective reading works very well with a group of 4 - 6, while OG tends to work better with 1 or 2.
I will be trained this summer with Project Read an OG program for groups of kids. I own the materials and have been trained in OG. I am looking forward to teaching groups of students OG using Project Read. Oh by the way, Project Read is for groups of both special ed and regular ed. students.
In conclusion, both programs are useful for the many types of LD students we service.
Re: O-G type instruction vs. DI
I think you’ll learn more from O-G training. DI is more like a Red Cross first aid course — break things down to their basics so you can teach it to the masses and save lives — where O-G goes deeper and leaves more judgement to the teacher — YES, this is a sweeping generalization and there’s overlap from both sides, so ask questions from the folks doing the training.
Well, first off, it’s not quite as “vs.” as it looks. OG uses direct instruction — SRA doesn’t own the idea. THeir direct instruction is even more regimented than OG with the scripted lessons, but the DI aspect is one of the strengths of both programs.
I’ve used both, and been trained in both. Most O-G programs come from therapeutic settings — I had 1-2 kids in each class for my first three years with it. So I didn’t need a script — with one kid at a time you can do a lot of diagnostic-prescriptive teaching, still keep to the structure, still have the constant interaction of direct instruction. (In some ways, O-G is *more* direct than SRA — it’s certainly more explicit in explaining all the rules and patterns, while Corrective REading is more focused on reinforcing and repeating the patterns.) My last two years we had classes of four-five — carefully placed so that kids were at the same level. It also ended up being a lot more “scripted” — though we didn’t write out a script — than when we were working 1:1 (with two in the class, we took turns and had each kid do half the period of independent work).
Most of the kids I taught would have done well with either program; each is systematic and structured and has lots of frequent feedback. Some of my kids really benefited from the multisensory stuff in OG that isn’t in SRA. With SRA it was easier for them to see progress — timed readings at the end of each day that we charted were extremely popular — and the kids said the class went a lot faster than it used to because it’s paced well. I always had to break the kids in at first — just like a choir director would have to teach new people the cues and that yes, we’re really going to do that line ‘til we get it right. For some people that’s, somehow, demeaning. Only if you make it that way, I think. It’s also just efficient communication.