The Orton- illin ham Methodolo gy :

dapt d for a 1nall roup

b
Laura Ba t

eot,rraph , im n ra r
d

im n Fra r

PROJ
T PR P AL
BMITT D I
R Q IR ME T F R THE DE

ni

r it , 2

7

niv r ity 2

P RTI L F LFI
F MA

In pecial ducation

NIV R I Y

F N RTH RN BRIT! H
cember, 2014
© Lauraba t, 2014

L MBI

II

A b tract

Educator have the difficult ta k oft aching t a va1i ty of dif-D rent typ

of 1 arn r . This

proj ct wa focu ed on giving edu ator an int n iv int rv ntion for tho e tudents with specific
reading di abiliti

wh are n t making pr gr

consideration teach r p rcepti n

. Thi manual wa creat d by taking into

n ph nic in truction a wel l a what they look for in reading

intervention program . Thi manual wil l b at a h r fri ndly re ource that can be u ed with
truggling read r wh are notre ponding to other int rvention .

iii

TABLE OF CONTENT
..

Ab tract

11

Table of ont nt

111

Li t of Table

v

Acknowl dgem nt

Vl

Introduction
hapt r

ne

Chapter Two

Chapter Three

lntr ducti n
ignificance f th Project
Backgr und of th Proj ct
Per onal Location
Purpo e of th tudy and R
Re arch onte t
Project vervi w

1

3
4
arch

uesti n

5
6
7
7

10
12
13

National Reading Panel R port
Defining xplicit, ystematic Phonic
Read Well Program
Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing Program for Reading, pelling and
Speech (LiPS)
LiPS Research
Guided Reading
Orton-Gillingham Methodology
01ion-Gillinghmn Research
Conclusion

21
25
26
30

Research Project
Methodology
Questionnaire Construction
Focus Group
Value of a Focus Group
Importance of a Moderator
Data ollection and Analysi
Manual onstruction
Conclu ion

32
32
33
33
33
35
35
36
3

18
19

IV

Chapter Four

Chapter Five

39
39

Data Analy i
Que tionair Data
Quantitative Data
Qualitative Data
Focu
roup
Adapted Orton-Gillinghmn Manual
onclu ion

44
46
47
48
81

Refl ction

83
86

Reference
Appendix 1

Teacher Perception Questionnaire

91

Appendix 2

Focus Group Que tions

95

v

Li t of Table
Table 1: Re pon e to Que tion Five on th Teacher urv y
Table 2: Re pon es to Que tion ix on the Teacher urvey
Table 3: Re p n e to Que tion Tl1re on th Teacher urv y
Tabl 4: Re pon

to Que tion Four n the Teacher urvey

Table 5: Re pon e to Que tion

ven on the Teacher urvey

Table 6: Re pons s to Que tion ight n the Teacher urvey

VI

Acknowledgements
Thi pr j ect ha
are really tru ggling t

me ut fm y 1
arn. I ha

D r tea hing and w rkin g with tho

w rked in th fi ld f pe ial du ati n D r

tudent wh
y ar and have

een o many t a her who epa i n D r tea hing hine thr ugh in everythin g they do. 1 w uld
like t dedi ate thi pr j ect t all of th edu cat r that p nd th ir tim e w rry ing ab ut th 1r
tud nt who tru ggle and findin g w ay t let th m hin .

I w uld like to thank m y hu band ,

m e thr ugh th e pr ce
thank m y brother,

of g ing back t

av and tep-children, M ax and
ch

mil y for upportin g

I t get m y M a t r' degree. 1 w uld al

like to

lexand r for putting up w ith m y Ia t minute editin g requ e t and c un elling

m e through th proce

a well a m y i ter in Jaw K atherin e who ha alway

upported m e in

any ta k . Finall y, a bi g thank you t m y mom and dad . Without th eir con tant upport, I wo uld
have nev r go tten tlu·ough chool in general and certainl y never go tt n thr ugh a m a ter'
degree. I try to und er tand tud ents who truggle b cau e I wa one, m y parent never gave up
on me.

Thi s project would not have been compl et d wi thout the gu id ance of m y up rvi or Dr.
Andrew Ki tchenh am . Thank you for yo ur p ati ence with m y grammar, constant feedback and
upport. In add iti n, thank you to m y co mm ittee member Johanna Laitinen and Dr.
taking the time and upportin g thi proj ect.

herry for

1

Chapter 1: Introduction
In the cla roo1n enviromn nt, it i co1nmon for educator to ee a perc ntage of th ir
tudent

truggl with acad 1nic d mand . Due to a wide pectrum fpotential cau e , it can b a

complex problem- olving pro

to figur out the r a on why a tudent struggl .

Environm ntal factors that can cau e low academi a hievem nt include i ue
and cmnpl x trauma. Phy iological factor can in lude diagn

i of di order

uch a poverty
uch a Attention

Defi it Di order or a lean1ing di ability.
Children who have a diagn

is of a learning di abibty may have difficulty with many

aspects of school. Reading di abilities are mo t prevalent, with 80o/o of all diagno ed learning
disabilitie falling into the category (Allen, 201 0). Th re are different theorie as to the etiology
of specific reading di abilities. A learning di ability is commonly diagnosed by the IQ-based
discrepancy criterion (Schmid, Labuhn, & Hasselhorn, 2011 ). According to the DSM-V, a
learning disability is defined as a gap between a student's acaden1ic ability or achievement and
his or her actual capacity to learn (American Psychological Association , 2013). A lean1ing
disability is considered to be a neurological disorder which can 1nanife tin a variety of way
including: auditory processing deficits, auditory and/or visual memory issues, expre sive and/or
receptive language delay and spatial mientation problem ( llen, 201 0).
Students who have a reading di ability may have difficulty with many aspects of the
reading process. Impainnent can be evident in one or more of the following acad mic area :
fluency, word recognition, reading comprehension, decoding and reading e pres ion. Dysle ia i
one common reading disability (Allen, 201 0) . The International Dy le ia A ociation defin e
dy lexia a ,

2

A pecific 1 aming di abi lity that i n ur 1 gical in ri gin. lt i chara teri zed by
difficultie with accurat and/ r fluent w rd rec gniti n and by p
dec din g abilitie . Th

e di ffi culti

c mp nent f language that i
abiliti

r p lling and

t pi all y re ult from a d fi it in the phonological

ft en un

p

ted in relati on t

ther

gniti ve

and th pr

m ay includ pro blem in readin g comprchen ion and redu ced reading experi nee th at
can impede gr wth fv cabul ary and ba kgr und kn w ledg (lntc1nati nal

y I x1a

A ociati n, 20 13).

When a tud ent i di agno

d w ith a readin g di abi lity

uch a d y I x ia, edu cator have

the di ffi cult ta k f findin g an intervention th at w uld be effecti v t m et that tud ent '
need . A common interventi on ugge ted by parent and o ther adv cacy group i th e
Gillingham approach (0 -G) (Ro e & Zirkel, 2007) .
read i a weakn e

in their phone1nic awarenes .

pecific
tion-

commo n i ue of tud ent ' inabilitie to

ften th e term p honolog ical awareness and

phon emic awareness are u ed interchangeabl y. Ph onolog ical awareness descri be the ab ili ty of a
student to manipul ate the ounds of language in a parti cul ar way (Winzer, 2008) . ki ll that
demon trate that a tud ent ha p honolog ical awareness includ e rhyming, egmenting yl lable
and blending (Winzer, 200 ). Ph onemic awareness is a very p cific u b ection of phonologi al
awarenes . Phonemic awareness d scribe a tud ent' und er tandin g of ind ividual ound within
word and the ab ility tow rk w ith th

e ound when readin g word (Winzer, 200 ).The

rton-

ill ingham methodology i one m ulti en ory approach that i recommended for children who
have a diagn

i

fa reading di abi lity.

3

Significance of the Project
There are numerou r earch-ba d literacy program and approach
creat d to me t th need

f tud nt with reading di abi litie .

that hav b n

high prevalenc of reading

di abilitie 1nake it more lik ly for teacher to ncount r childr n with thi diagno i in their
cla roo1n . ducator n ed trategie and int rv ntion to addr s the diver e ne d of tud nts
who need remediation in reading. Th re 1 ome controver y among educator a t an
appropriat intervention to u e with tudent with reading challenge .

There earch in thi project aimed to ill ustrate educator ' p rceptions and opinion about
using phonic a an intervention with tudent who have a pecific weakn

in r ading. A

multisensory approach like Orton- illingham i con ider d by advocates to meet the pecific
needs of student with this diagnosis . There ar manual that adapt the Orton-Gillingham
method for educator to use in whole classroom instruction such as, What to Teach and f-low
(Zylstra & Lindsey, 2002) which gives infonnation about how to implement instruction to a
classroom of children, with all levels and abilities, according to the 01ion-Gillingham
methodology. However, I believe that there were no manuals that adapted the Orton-Gillingham
approach specifically for a small group setting or that compiled the vast amount of resources for
ease of use. A larger number of students could be reached if speciali t teachers were able to use
this approach in small-group lean1ing assistance settings.

There is an intensive training process in order to become an Orton-Gillingham tutor
which is why it is necessary to maintain standardization among tutors while they use thi
therapeutic intervention with students.

rton- illingham wa designed to be taught in a one-o n-

one tut ring environment. A manual that show specifically how to imp! ment this interventi on

4

1n a mall group etting would giv

om

tandardization and pre erve the integrity of the

approach.
In my per onal exp rience, I have een many r ading intervention manual that are
onerou and difficult to follow. The followin g proj ect i a clear conci e, and teacher-fri ndly
re ource which outline how t impl m nt the
setting ( ee Chapter 4 ).

rton- illingham appr ach in a tnall group

draft copy of th manual wa examined by a focu group in order to

obtain feedback on the efficacy of the manual from an edu cator' point of view .

fter collecting

the data, I revi ed the manual taking into con id erati on participant ' feedback.

Background of the Project
Spruceland Traditional Elem entary i a choice chool within a rural BC school di strict.
As a choice school, Spruceland Traditional adhere to traditional values and virtue . Although
any students in the district can attend Spruceland Traditional, the catchment bound aries
encompass a low-income neighbourhood . Spruceland Traditional has 14 divi ions and 350
students. Out of this 350, 95 students are receiving English-as-a-Second Dial ect (E D) uppoti
and/or Lean1ing Assistance and 50 students have a special needs designation (SPSS , 2013). As
the resource teacher at Spruceland, I have the responsibility of being ca e manager for tudents
who are receiving SD and L an1ing Assi tance as well as for the tudent with a pecial
education designation. Above and beyond these numbers, there are a growing number of student
who are on the list to have an asse ment by the school psychologist.
The following proj ect grew out of Student upp01i Team meeting in which we di cu ed
result from p ycho-educational asses ments comp leted by the school p ych logi t. In the Ia t
year, many children at pruceland Traditional have been diagno ed and designated a having a

5

1 arning di ability a detennined by L el

t ting . The majority f the e tudent have a

1 aming di ability with a pecific d fi it in reading and m r
awarene . The ch
inten i

1 p y h 1 gi t' m

t

1nm n rec mm nd ati n i t give the tudent

int rventi n th at i multi en ory in nature, and [i

mall -gr up nvir nment. The
rec mm end d by the ch

pe ifi ally, in ph nemic

u

rt n- illingh am meth d I gy 1

n ph nemi awaren e

wa

ne approach that i c mm nl y

I p y h logi t a an effecti v rem edi ati on .

Per onal Location
F r 10 y ar , I have been a certifi d
expen ence a an

rt n- illingham th erapeuti c tut r. In m y

tutor, I hav w rk d w ith num er u children w ith a vari ety of need

II

tudent had a p cifi c defi cit in th e area of readin g; ome tud ent had a di agno i of a learnin g
di ability and other did not. The tud ent I taught may hav had averag int lli gence but had
ignificant tru ggle in academi c area

u h a readin g or m ath . A a teach er, I hav

peciali zed

in learnin g assi tance and p cial edu cati on D r ix year . During thi time, I hav con i tently
heard oth er educator ' fru stration over how to effecti vely teach stud ents who conti nue to
stru ggle de pite intense intervention .

Through Reso urce T eacher m eeting , I have heard from oth er du cator that there i a
need for intervention that fo cu e on phonological and phonemi c awarene . There are many
programs and approaches that coll eague beli ve are ucce ful interventions fo r teaching
readin g to tud ent w ith di abiliti e . ome of the e progra m incl ud e LIP , Read 1¥el/ and
r l on -

illingham. Thr ugh ut our du cati on c mmunity, th ere i a long- tanding di cu , ion on

w hether ph oni

in tru cti on i a valid approach fo r teaching reading, in general. When \ orking

with children w ho have defi cit in phon logi al pr

ing and alphabetic prin ·iplc, , an

6

intervention that is phonic -ba ed i oft n con ider d pr01ni ing practice.

here i alway a query

about using the Orton- illingham m thod with th e tudent who are not progre mg.
In my li1nited xpen nee many p cial
de ire to be train d in thi method. Th

ducation teach r have been train d or have the

Lion- illinghmn tnethod wa created to work one-on-

one with tudent . I b li v that many teacher are h itant to make it part of their teaching
practice becau e they may be overwhelm d with adapting it to use in a mall group, organizing
the le son and dealing with all of the manipulative .

Purpose of the Study and Research Ques tion
The purpose ofthi

tudy wa to illu trate what educators look for in a phonic -based

reading intervention. There are a variety ofre earch-based program designed pecifically to
remediate reading for students who have reading di abilities. There are also phonics programs
that are not necessarily backed by research but are widely used by teachers. This study attempted
to highlight teacher opinions about what they believed was "best practice" when using phonics as
a reading intervention in a Canadian context.
The central research question in this study was: What do educator look for when
choosing a phonics-based literacy intervention? The following question were answered by
research included in this project;

I . What is the need for phonic -ba d in tructionJintervention in early primary year ?
2. How do educator choose a reading intervention? Is a program that has tati ticallysignificant research behind it preferable?
evidence from other educator ?

r, do teachers take into consideration ane dotal

7

3. What do educator look for in a 1nanual? What charact ri tic do they find effective and
efficient for their interventi n ?

Researcher Context
For this tudy, I a there earcher took the role a active re earch r.
had there ponsibility of admini tering th

s the research r, I

urvey to participant and then collecting the data. I

en1ailed a web-ba ed que tionnaire to the participant . After the compl tion of the survey, u ing
a quantitative methodology, I coded and th med the data. The data from this urvey illustrated
teacher opinions on what they looked for when they cho e phonics-ba ed reading intervention.

As a part of this project I created a manual that adapted the one-on-one OrtonGillingham tutoring approach for small group in truction. Data from the first survey guided the
manual creation. At a resource teacher meeting, participant examined the draft copy of the
manual and participated in a focus group. The focus group had two sessions ; the first one was a
discussion and feedback about the manual. Data from the que tionnaire provided infonnation on
how the manual could be changed to make it a 1nore effective and user-frien dly re ource. After a
revision to the manual, the second session involved the participants completing a questionnaire
that exmnined how they felt about the revisions.

Project Overview

The following project will highli ght ducators' opinions on phonics intervention when
planning for a student with reading challenges. It will also fill the claimed d mand for a manual
outlining the Orton- illingham methodology in the Prince George chool Di trict. In my
opinion, thi manual will help to tandardize the adaptati n of thi approach for teach r u ing it
in mall-group enviromnent while mainta ining the integrity and efficacy of the methodology. If

8

th r i a clear and conci e manual the

rt n- illingham approach could be u ed effici ntly in a

tnall -group lean1ing a i tanc envirom11 nt a a reading int rv ntion.
The next chapt r of thi prOJ ct xamm
phonological awar n

interv ntion .

a mnpl

f the literatur on vanou

rticle , manual , chapter and web it

will be

examin d to highlight the r lation hip betwe n dir ct t aching of thi method a well a oth r
intervention program , and th

ffect n r ading ability f tudent with reading di abilities .

hapter 3 of thi pr ject i a di cu ion of there earch method s u ed in thi study. The
re earch methodology employ d a eros

ctional survey de ign. It involved 10-15 participants

who were chosen using purpo ful sampling. To illustrate opinion about how educator pick
reading progrmns and intervention , I chose participant according to specific criteria. The
satnple included lean1ing a istance teacher , re ource teacher , teacher from primary grades
and student support specialist . All participants had experience with putting reading interventions
into place with struggling readers who had specific reading disabilitie . The second part of the
study was a focus group and had four to six participants. These participants were chosen
according to the same criteria as the first survey group. Participant reviewed a draft copy of a
manual and gave specific feedback. A second session of the focus group had participant look at
a revision of the manual that took into account their feedback .
Chapter 4 of thi s project begins with a presentation and discus ion of the data gathered
from the participants and how those data were incorporated into the manual. The maj rit

f the

chapter includes a 1nanuaJ that outline specifically how to teach the Orton-Gillingham method
in a small -group environment. Taking into account :D edback from participant , thi manual
trive to be a clear, conci e teacher-f1iendly re ource.

9

Th la t chapter pr vide in ight gained fr m the r earch. It include a di cu i n f my
own refl ction a w 11 a

ugg ti n fl r future re ar h. It c nclud

r c mmendati n fl r th

ry practice, and pecial

ducati n.

with a brief di cu ion of

10

Chapter 2: Literature Review
There i a larg body of re arch in the ar a f f:D ctive intervention for children who
have pecific r ading di abilitie . Primarily quantitative tudie hav b en conducted on the
efficacy ofu ing a multi en

ry approach with aD cu on 1 h nic t rem diat in truction for

truggling read r . Although there i

me qualitativ r

ar h on thi topic, re

arch lacking and

hould be con idered in ord r to d lve de per into uncovering educators' opinion regarding the
role of phonic in truction in cuniculum .

Thi literature revi w begin by exmnining two

ati nal Reading Panel r port . In the

United States a pan 1 wa a sembled that i made up of a variety of professional , who analyze
current re earch and methodologies. In addition, due to the frequency in the literature and
importance, the tenn explicit, systematic phonics is briefly defined and examined. To better
understand the range of interventions, four common research-based remedial readin g
interventions are analyzed: the Orton-Gillingham methodology (0-G), the LiP program, the
ReadWell Program, the Guided Reading approach.

National Reading Panel Report
It is important to take National Reading Panel report into perspecti ve when examining

what reading intervention educators should consider "best practice" for th eir students. The main
purpo e of the National Reading Panel is to critically evaluate and analyze the current re earch
literature on reading (National Reading Panel, 1999). Reports created from the National R ading
Panel, um1narize finding about cmTent research, analyze m thodology on how _tudent lean1 to
read and sugge t which intervention fit mo t appropriately. Unfortunately, th National Reading
Panel only looked at reading literature and re ear h from a

nited tate

onte t there ult of

11

the analy

could b generaliz d to a

anadian c nt xt. Th pan 1 tre e that early

identification and int rv ntion i important for tud nt , therefor , valid and reliabl a essment
tool ne d to be available. R ading in tru tion hould not be the arne for every tudent, but
rather take int c n ideration the differ nt n

d of each tudent.

n a imilar note, in truction

need to b varied for tudent wh hav typical reading develop1nent a well a tho e who have
lean1ing di abiliti

. There is a wide range of diffi cultie £ r children with leatning di abilities

that can impact the r ading proce

in dif£ r nt way . Th Pan 1 uggest that tud ent with

learning di abilitie commonly benefit from an interventi n th at is tn1 ctured, equ ential and
multi en ory in d li very. Th Orton- illingham m ethod logy adhere to those characteri sti cs;
however, other student may need interventions that have a primary focu on comprehen ion
strategies. Due to this fact, it is very important for tudent to be screened by valid assessment
tools and sub sequently, educators can choose intervention that uit their distinct need .

For the purposes of thi s literature review and research stud y, the National Reading
Panel 's analysis of phonics instruction is of particular intere t. In the National Reading R eport

(2000), research was conducted to an wer the bro ad question of whether systematics phonic
instruction is 111ore effective than no phonics instruction. In order to analyze thi , researcher
used literature that was published after the year 1970 and contained re earch regarding
systematic phonics, unsystetnatic phonics or no phonics instruction. All of the re earch studies
were comparison studies which had to have a control group and an intervention group.
According to the research analyzed, children who have reading disabilities are po itively
impacted by phonic in truction.

y tematic phonic instruction is b neficial for tho e tud nt

who have the common deticit in decoding skills. The Orton- illingham Methodology and oth r
program ba ed on this method logy were e amined in depth . For tudent who have diffi ult

12

1 an1in g t read e aminati n of th re ear h on luded that y t matic h m
lead t

in tructi n d e

ignificant gain in reading and p ll ing.

Defining E ·plicit, y tematic Phonic

In r
p honi , i

iewing th

in tru cti n, th e tenn exp li it, sy st mali ·

tant literature n ph 111

n thr ugh ut th lit rature.

cc rding t the

ati n al R eading Pan 1 rep rt,

effi cti v in tructi n mu t be

n id ered e pli it and y t mati (M e m r &

teacher are e p ct d to ch

an effecti ve interv nti n, th ey fir t mu t un ler tand th tetm

r1 ffith , 2005). If

explicit, sy stematic p honi · .

M e mer and

riffith (2005 ) att mpted t defin e the t rm exp licit, sysLematic p honics . In

ord er t a i t w ith thi defini tio n, th auth r conducted a h rt urvey whi h a ked teach r
their opini on on th e ubj ect. T hew rd p honics, d

cribe a language y t m in whi ch ymbol

are conn ected with the ound they m ake. In an edu cati onal context, tud ent are taught h w to
u e thi sound - ymbol relation hip in ord er to read whole word . Hi tori call y, the tenn expliciL,
sy tematic p honics ha b een commonl y u ed to de ctibe variou phonic program . After
decon tru cting the hi tory of thi phra e, the author

um it up conci ely. They argued that th

tenn xp licit, systema Lic p honic de cribe an approach that ha direct in truction of a p cific
equence

I teache

decoding kill . There earcher

ent out a qu e tio nnaire to 1000 primary

teacher to illu trate how teacher perceive ph ni c program .

ut of the 1000 urvcy mailed ,

382 were returned and 362 were u ed in the tud y. The purpo

of th

urv e wa t find out

teacher o pini n about " be t practi e" w hen teaching phonic , as well a what technique
hould be con id red expli it and y t mati c.
y tcmati c appr a h t ph ni c mu t b acti ve!

hi gh numb r oft a her fi It that an

pli cit and

ngaging fo r the tud nt. With a rc. pon. ive and

13

direct teaching approach, tud nt

hould a tiv ly di scov r phonics. A hort li t of progrmns and

approache that t ach r con id r d to fit the

critetia wer ; 1naking word

word ort and

phonic game .
According to the teacher in th pr vtou

tudy, their opinion about phonic instructi n

ar con i tent with the tenn explicit and systemati . More qualitative r

arch would have to be

reviewed in order to give evidence that thi i a common opini n among teacher . There are
numerou reading program that teacher mu t ch

e from wh n con idering a r ading

intervention for student who are tru ggling. However, the theory that phonics instruction should
be explicit and y tematic will impact how educator choo e an appropriate int rv ntion
program. There are many research-bas d phonic program that fit thi specific criterion.
Read Well Program
The Read Well program is a reading intervention for kindergarten to Grade 3. It directl y
teaches phonemic awarene s through a progressive equential approach (Cambium Lemning,
20 13a). Within each lesson there is direct instruction of the following skill : phonemi c
awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension strategies. There are 38 units in
total with each unit consisting of six lessons that focus on one new sound , while building on
sounds taught in previous les ons. The first step in each le on is the discovery of the new sound .
Discovery is accomplished through teaching of a rhytning story which includ es the new sound .
Practi ce of the new sound occurs as students work through the decoding folder for each unit. The
next activity is reading practice. Students read two passage each les on, one i a dual reading
with the teacher and one is independ nt. After the r ading passage , student work throu gh
reading comprehension que tion .

14

R ad w; ll u e a vari ty f trategie in each 1
di crimination, blending in tru ti n,

ng and rhym

on t help with retention; audit ry
to intr du e new c n

pt . Th

tru tur

f th r adin g material i uniqu . The r ading pa ag

b g in w ith dual r ading, wher th

teacher r ad

ual r adin g let the tud ent

readin g pr

ne part and th

tudent r ad

n th r.

w ith th e tea her haring th ta k w ith th em . Th i

th e b ok t ha e a hi gher inter t I v I with ri ch v

th
all ow fl r

hared readin g al

abul ary and c ntent unlike th er dccodable

pa age .

ambium L an1ing (20 I a) pr vid d a di

u i n ab ut th e apparent " be t practi c "

regarding phoni c in tru ti on and int rventi n acco rding t th e

ational R eadin g Panel. From

that di cu ion the Read We ll program i c n id red to m eet the criteri a to be o n id ered
y tem atic and expli cit phonic in truction .

1 o n th e web ite are re earch tudi

and pil ot

proj ct evalu ation of the Read We ll p rogram . In thi literature review, fi v of th e tudi e are
di cus ed to give a nap hot of the effi cacy of the program .

11 imp! em ntati on of Read We ll

pilot program and data tracking occmTed in elem ntary chool in th e U nited

tate .

Montgomery Alabama elementary chool stud y. A n elem entary ch ol in A labam a
impl em ented the Read We ll program fo r their core readin g curri culum and for a remedial read ing
intervention ( ambium Lean1in g, 20 13b) . D ata from thi
U ing the D yn ami c Indi cator of B a ic

tud y wa co ll ected from 2005 to 2009.

arly Litera y kill (DIB L ) for ba eli ne data and

di tiict benchm ark , data howed a p itive in r a

in tud cnt w ho rea hed appropriat reading

benchm ark . In 2005 when the pr j ect began, 9 to 57 percent of tudent wer reaching
appro pri ate benchmark by th e end of kind erga rten.

fte r th

car of imp lementation,

6 percent of tud ent rea hed ben hmark by th end of kind erga rt n. T here ult in thi
h w eviden e th t R ad W ell doc h ve a po iti

to
tud

impact on r 'adi ng progre s. The authoL

15

tated that it wa u ed a b th a ore r ading curri ulum and remedial reading int rv ntion.
Howe

r there wa n br akd wn f pr gre

fl r typically de el ping tud nt and th

e

con id r d at-ri k.
Hunt ville

ity chool tud y. In 200

the Hunt vill e

ity

tri ct in

h

labama

impl ment d th R ead T1fe/l pr gram in all 29 ch ol wi th ki nd ergarten and grade ne tud ent
( ambium Learnin g 20 13 ). Thi arti le hi ghli ght re earch fr m th e tw
ap I m ntary and M nt iew

I mentar . The e tw

h

cho I , Mountain

I had the l we t ba cline reading

core in th di tri t ac ording t DIB L re ult . In 2005 , 43 o/o of kind ergarten fr m M untain
ap lementary c red at or above benchm ark level .

fter impl ementati n of th e Read Well

program, 9 1o/o of parti cip ant w re at or ab ve benchm ark readin g level . The

co nd choo l in

the tud y, Montview lementary, had imil ar re u lt . In 2005 , ba eline a se ment
33% of kind ergart n tud ent w re at or above reading benchmark .

howed th at

fter the impl ementati on of

the Read Well curriculum, thi jumped to 73 o/o of all tud nt being at or above readin g
benclunark .
Lee Coun ty public chool. A ingle-group po tte t tud y wa condu cted in the Lee

ounty Public Schoo l system that to examine the effi cacy of the R ead Well program ( ambium
Lean1ing, 20 13d). The impl ementati on of Read Well wa a di trict wide initiative for all
kind ergarten and grade one tud ent . tud ents received in tructi on via whole cia
mall gro up instru cti on for approximat ly 90 minute a day, with an

a well a

tra 30 minute if the

were tru ggling read r . The patii cipant ampl e for the tud y wa 4, 13.... tudent , with 55° o that
had a di fferent ethni ity, 25 %were _,
u ed th e 018
rd er t

and 7o/o had a pe ial need de ignation . Edu ·ator.

ment, t d tennine that 7 % of tud ent fe ll in t the at-ri k categor . In

how tudent pro gre

in reading kill aft r th e intervention, re 'ar h r. u cd , ore ,

16

fro m the tandford Achievetnent Te t en -1oth
impl tnentation with kindergarten tudent

dition (

T -1 0) . Aft r 6 month of progrmn

4% of the participant fell into th meeting or

exce ding range. When exmnining reading progre , it i difficult to gage efficacy unle s ther
are long tenn r ult . If a tudent make progr
will nece arily continue. Thi

D ron year, it d es n t m an that the progr

tudy did aD 11 w-up with th kindergmien cob rt the following

year at the end of grade one. Average or above average reading core were e n by al l
participant at the one year follow-up . Thi longitudinal data is needed in order to show the long
tenn itnpact of a pecific program on reading progre .
Tacoma public school. In 2007 , the Tac01na Public chool district gathered stati tics to

show the efficacy of their new di trictwide reading program, Read Well (Cambium Lean1ing,
2013e) . The program wa piloted in the 2006-2007 school year.

tati tic were collected from

those years, as well as in 2008 so that longitudinal data could be gathered from the same sample
of children. The Read Well program was considered by the Tacmna Public School di trict to
meet the criteria as a systematic and explicit phonics instruction. During the 2006-2007 year,
there were 2, 367 kindergarten students and 2, 314 students in grade 1, that participated in the
Read Well initiative. Participants received Read Well instruction everyday for 90 minutes if they
attended full day kindergarten and 45 minutes if they attended half-day kindergarten. After the
first year of implementation, DIBELS data frmn the kindergarten cohort showed a 12 percent
increase in the Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (P F) and a 4 percent increase in the Non ense
Word Fluency (NWF). The grade one participants achieved a 29 percent improvement in Oral
Reading Fluency (ORF) and a 20 percent gain in Non ens Word Fluency (NWF) . Reading
research is needed in order to how th efficacy of a c rtain approach. Longitudinal data i
important becau e it how whether an intervention an produce progre

that co ntinue . There

17

were 1 1

parti ipant m

data fr m the

lved in the I ngitudin 1 tudy. In th year 2006, 2007 , and 200

pmii ipant wa anal yz

pmiicipant had an in rea

f 19 per ent nth

nt in

tudy,

. Pa1ii ipant that had two year
L

W . Parti cipant

f

aw an 11

R at the nd of rad 1. Thi I ngitudinal data h w d th at

percent in crea

in D IB L

reading pr gre

ontinu ed fi r th parti ipant

thre

P

IB

of 12 p r

Read ~ II in tructi n h w

Mi

n lu i n f th fir t year f thi

t the

ver a 1 nger p n d f time.

ippi elementary chool. In tw Mi i ippi ch

I di tri ct , 144 tud ent fr m

ch ol were ele t d t parti ipate in a tud regardin g R )ad Well interventi n ( ambium

Learning, 20 13£).

ut f the 144 pa1i icipant , 4 w re in kind ergarten and 47 were in

rade 1.

Read Well in tructi n wa given to tud nt wh were co n id red at-ri k for readin g chall eng
according to DIB L , T xa Primary Reading In ventory (TPRI) and
and Diagno ti c valu ati on ( RAD ).
in kind ergarten in crea ed progre

roup Reading A e ment

fter int rv nti on, a c rding to the DIB L , parti ipant

from their ba eline a e ment in Letter namin g fl uency

(LNF) by ix percent, Phoneme egmentati on Flu ency (P F) by 4 7 percent and

on en e Word

Fluency (NWF) by 20 percent. In ord er to ee the effi cacy of thi approach, the e percentage
mu t be compared with the control group. Also fro m DI BL data co ntro l group participant
decreased by 17 percent in L F, had no change in P F, and increa ed four percent in

WF.

Results from the grade one participant were simil ar to the kind ergarten patiicipant . Parti ipant
in the interventi n group h wed incr a e of 16 percent in P F, an increa e of 14 p rcent in
NW and an increase of 12 p rcent in
group, progres
in P

raJ Reading Flu ncy ( RF) . ompared to the control

f th e interventi on gro up were ignifi ant. The con tro l group howed no hange

, had a decrea e f two p rcent in NWF and a deer a e of 10 per ent in

R .

18

Th e aminati n f fi

tudi

nduct d n the R ad W 11 appr a h il lu trate that thi

program i are ar h-ba ed r ading interv nti n that t a h

d d fl r reading in a

f th R ead W II w b it a w ell a the pr gram

y tematic and engaging way. hr ugh ana l
material , thi program 1 a

ki ll n

mprehen ive ph ni

-ba d re

ur

and ha a hi gh ea e f u e fl r

teacher .

Lindamood Phon eme cqu encin g Progran1 for R ea din g, pellin g and

Another interventi n th at teache ph n m1 c awarenc

peech (LiP )

i th Lindamood Phoneme

Sequen ·ing Program .for R adin , {Jelling and 17ee ·h (LiP ) (Lindm

d, 201 I).

d &Lind am

Thi interv enti on wa prev i u ly call d the Audit01y Discrimination in D epth Program
(P A P)( ati onal Reading Panel 2000). T he LiPS program teache ph onemi c awarene

through

an oral-m otor approach. It i ba ed on direct in tru cti on of the ound - yrnb 1 relati n hip
through multi en ory technique wh re th

tud nt

ee, hear and fl el the ound th ey are

producing. In th e LiPS manual, there i a clear vi u al di agram th at how th e interacti on of th e
three key facet of the reading proce

that i central to thi program ; audi tory p roce ing, vi ual

proces ing and language proce ing (Figure 1.1 The readin g proce , p . 2). A uditory proce mg
explain phonemi c awareness and wo rd attack kill . Vi ual pr ces in g i orthographic
proce ing and word recognition ta k . F inall y, language proce in g i contextual reading and
v cabul ary development. A ll of th e e concept are interc nn cted and are n
co mpetency.

d d for reading

entral to the LiP program i the concept of du al codin g. tud ent learn ne

kil1 for ph nemi c awarene

throu gh feedback fr m hearing, eeing and a ing th

Thi i a simil ar the ry to the

rt n- illingham multi en ory approa h for tea hing phoncmi

awaren
kill .

. B th appr a he u e fe dba k fro m all

ound

n c in order to directly tea h important

ar

19

LiPS research
Th National R ading Pan 1Rep rt c n ider the r
progrmn to be accurate and valid in bowing th

arch conducted on u ing th LiP

fficacy of thi approach (National Reading

Panel, 2000). Much of there ear h n the LiP pr gram ha b en conducted in th United
tate . However Mclntyr

Pr tz and Me uarri (2008) gathered data on thi approach within a

Canadian cont xt, in a a katch wan ch

I di trict. The purpo

of th re earch wa to find out

what impact th LiPS program had on tudent who w re typically developing as ppo d to
those who were at-ri k for lean1ing chall ng . The main purpo e of the tudy wa to ee if
inten ive early int rvention would help tho

tudent who were identified as at-risk. There were

277 grade one tudent and 16 teacher who participat d in thi study. All participant were fr01n
elementary school in a rural a katchewan school di trict. The Kindergarten creening tool and
the Grade One Screening Tool were used to find baseline data. Both asses ments were created by
educators in thi Saskatchewan chool di trict to identify reading weaknes es and how long
term reading progress. Data positively supports the research question in thi study; will the LiPS

program help to improve the reading skills of at-risk students. From the tudy, the LiPS program
was considered to be effective in decreasing the level of reading failure in kindergarten and
grade one.
The LiPS program was created for a very specific type of reading deficit. Kennedy and
Backman (1993) conducted a tudy u ing the LiPS program with student who were di agno ed
with severe learning disabilities. The pmiicipant receiv d LiP in truction in conjunction with
another remedial reading int rvention. There wa another interv ntion group of 10 pmiicipant
who al o had evere learning di abilitie , who only received th remedial r ading interventi n.
Data bowed that forth participants who received both int rvention , they had significant

20

progre

in the ar a of ph nol gical awar ne

and pelling com par d to the participant who

only r ceived one interv nti n.
mnpan on tudies xamine there earch b hind reading intervention . Th y not only give
a nap hot of th efficacy fa certain int rventi n, but they provide data that how how it
compare t other . Torg n en et al (2001) conducted a study that involved 60 participant who
had

vere reading di abiliti

. The focu of thi

tudy wa to compare two different remedial

reading program , the LiP program and embedded phonic . At the time of the tudy, th LiP
program wa called Auditory Di crimination in Depth (ADD). This program wa edited, revi ed
lightly and i now the LiPS program. Embedded phonics i an approach that teache reading by
focusing on the word level kill . The root of thi program are in rhyming, where word are
taught according to si1nilar beginning, 1niddle and end sound . Each participant received
intervention for 50 minutes per day over a period of 8 weeks. Participant were randmnly
assigned to each group. Within the groups, participants were further ability grouped according to
scores from the Lindamood Auditory Conceptualization Test as well as IQ cores and phone1nic
awareness assessment. Both the treatment group and control group made significant progress in
the areas of comprehension, fluency and decoding skills. According to data from the Woodcock
Reading Master Test-Revised, taken at the completion of the intervention, the participants that
had the LiPS instruction showed significant growth in decoding ski ll . Unfortunately, they did
not maintain that growth when assessed one and two y ars later.
The LiPS cope and sequence begins with ba ic kill and continues to build on tho e kill
as the program progresses. The manual itself is clear and conci e, with every 1 son laid out in a
way that i ea y for teacher to follow and impl m nt. Pmiicularly helpful, is the cript of each
concept for in truction. Ther is information ab ut how to handle conections approptiately when

21

n i a m ateriall i t and directi n fl r when t u e the

tud nt make err r .

ng with ach le

multi

lth ugh LiP in tru ti n i

n

ry 1nateri al

di co ery th

with LiP

nfu ing. h re ear h

ti n and

n i tentl y h w improved

in tru tion in the ar a f w rd atta k kill . lt i a gr at appr ach for tho e

tud nt with pe ific defi it in ph nemi awaren

. H wev r, in rd er t give tud nt

balanced reading in tru ti n · thi appr a h w uld ha
trat gi

th way th at tud nt

und i t acher ir cted . F r orne tud ent , thi intera ti n f qu

an wer may be verwhelming and
pr gre

mpreh n iv

in rd r t addre

flu ency and

t be u ed in c nj un cti n w ith oth r

mp rehen i n.

Guided Readin g

uid ed Readin g a balan ced literacy approa h, i anoth er way that edu cator given
reading in tru cti on a w 11 a r m di ate for tru ggling reader . Thi appr ach h a a fl cu on
differenti ating in tructi on by u in g leveled reader fl r in tru cti on (Fo unta & Pinn ell 20 13). B y
u ing ability-ba ed group , thi technique can m eet ach tud ent '
need rem edi ati on or enri chment.

p cific need wheth er th y

tud ent read book that are at their instru cti onal level, whi ch i

the level where th ey will m ake the m o t progre . Literature at tud ent in tructi onal level, i
'j u t ri ght ' for them , not too ea y and not too di ffi cult. With the ucce

and ad ption of the

guided readin g approach through the edu cati onal community, Fo unta and Pi nnell teamed up
wi th Scholastic, in ord er to continu e the succe
cholas tic web ite, th ere i an

of the approach ( chola ti c, 20 14 ).

cellent overv iew of the hi t ry of guided reading a well a a

di cu ion about guid ed readin g fr m a r earch-ba ed per p cti e.
guid e readin g w
traditi nal. In 199

n th

ccording to thi document,

created in res p n e to other reading progra m that ma be c n idered more
unta and Pinn II intro du

d gui ded r ad ing a a reading int rvention that

fl exibl e appr ach and u e ri h tc t that i tail r d to th diver,

n ed in the cia , room .

22

Thi approach i

ft n primarily u ed a

mall gr up in tru ti n but there are pportuniti

within it£ r wh le gr up in tructi n a w 11 a

ne- n- n

upp Ii . W rking off fthe criti 1 m
11 dynamic gr upmg of

of traditi nal reading gr up

uid d Reading in tructi n £ cu

tudent that practice all f th

kill that are nv,.AJ.::l.::lary £ r c mp tent reading. Phon I gical and

ph n mic awar ne

are taught within th c nt

w rd , relying on their word

t f ea h b

k.

tud nt ar taught t

olv

mpreh n 1 11 kill are directly taught and

lving trat gi

practic d thr ugh le on . tudent w rk n kill

uch a making c 11nectio11 , ummarizing and

inferring a they read at th ir level.

Iaquinta (2006) upp rted the fficacy f the guid d reading appr ach. The main purpo e
of the article i to highlight h w guided r ading i an effective reading in tructi n which meet
the diver e need of tudent within the la ro m nvironment. Iaquinta (2006) argue that
guided reading i are earched-ba ed, balanced literacy approach that i con idered to be " be t
practice" for reading in truction . According to the National Reading Pan 1, balanced literacy
approaches, like guided reading, hould b u ed ab ve oth r t teach tudent to read.

uided

Reading has three main foundations : to improve fluency and comprehen ion, to meet th di ver e
need of reader in the classroom and to con truct meaning from text. A e ment i an
important fir t tep before pr ceeding with thi

mall -group in truction. B nchmark find

tudent "ju t right" level and identify which group they hould fit into . Iaquinta (2006) ugg t
that guided reading grouping work be t if they are fle ible and dynami c. Th group

hould

periodically be changed around in order to keep up with the changing reading ne d of tudent .
her le f the tea her i integral to the guid ed reading proc
teacher' j b i t create tudent who di c v r the proce
direction .

the le on i carried out, th
f reading through prompting and

23

Founta and Pinnell (2013) compar d the perc iv d efficacy ofthi approach or romance,
with the actual reality of the approach. Thi com pari on con1ing dir ctly fr01n the creator of th
approach, i an intere ting analy i of why guided reading i perceiv d to be "be t practice" and
the actual efficacy of the approach. Relying on re earch, th author argue that guided reading
ha be n gaining popularity in the cla ro m etting and i u d frequently a an instructional
techniqu . One a pect that i integral to th guided r ading proce
learning enviromn nt for tudent with div r

i the ability to create a

abilities and ne d . ounta and Pinnell suggested

that educator who have et up the guided reading approach have been romanced or channed by
the approach. When book are leveled, mall groups are cr ated and educators have a method,
guided reading can run moothly. However, the authors argue that educator n ed to under tand
the reality of how effective the approach i a typical reading program or a an intervention to
remediate reading. A tudy wa conducted on the guided reading approach in the United State
and funded federally. This study involved 8, 500 participants from 17 different school ,
kindergarten to grade 3. Using the D IBELS as benchn1ark data, fall and pring, researcher
collected smne interesting data on the reading progress of participants. Overall, in the first year
of the program, students' progress improved by 16 percent. The second year of implementation,
students' progress improved by 28 percent. Finally, in the third year of the program, students
1nade gains of 32 percent. An important pati of the guided reading process is ongo ing training of
the educators involved. The approach is successful because of the structured of th e cla room et
up and how instruction is given. However, setting up guided reading in the cl a room can be a
daunting task which many educator may find overwhelming.
When examining which instruction fit for students with pecifi reading di abilities,
guided reading re earch i lacking in stati sti cal ev idenc regarding phoni cs and phonemic

24

awarene . Guid d reading i con id r d to b a balanced lit racy approach, with 1nuch of the
focu on c01npr hen i n kill . Kouri

ell

and Riley (2006) conducted an int re ting tud y that

compared guid d reading to a graphoph netnic approach with tudent who had sp cific
languag impainnent ( LI). Participant in thi

tudy w r 21 tudent with typical language

development and 14 who had pecific language in1painn nt. Re archer u ed the
Evaluation of Language Fund am ntal Third

diti n (

LF-3) as well a the

Te t of Phonological Proce ing ( T PP) to find ba eline data. Thi

linical

omprehensive

tudy i inter ting because

the researcher were con i tent with each approach and how they dealt with corrective feedback.
In the graphophonemic condition, participant wer cued and prompted through using their
decoding and blending strategie when coming to an unknown word . In contrast, the meaning
group, or guided reading group, was prompted according to the word in context. Miscues were
handled at a break in passage rather than imtnediately during reading. All participants in each
condition group read the same passage and comprehension was also as e sed. Results showed
that the graphophonemic control group had a higher rate of accurately correcting mi scue than
did the guided reading group. The authors concluded that using graphophonemic instruction with
students with specific language impainnent may be a more effective strategy than a meaning
based system.

Orton-Gillingham Methodology
The Orton-Gillingham Methodology began with Samual Orton 's theorie of 1 arnmg
di abilities based in neurobiology (Gillingham & Stillman, 1997). Dr. Samual Orton was a child
neurologi tin the early 20th century who conducted research into the cau e reading di abiliti e
(Ritchey &

oeke, 2006) . At that ti1ne, re earch into learning di abilitie was j u t beginning and

little wa ' known ab ut cau e and prevalence (Ritchey &

oeke, 2006) . Otion had some

25

intere ting th

ne about reading di abi litie b mg n ur bi 1 gical in rigin (Rit hey &

2006). Hi tw maJ r th
ina cur at
beli

ne ab ut th

au e f lean1ing di abilitie are n w con idered

but at the time, it wa a tep in th right dir

tion (Rit hey

rever al w re reated by inti rmati n being pr ce ed in b th hemi phcr
ek

cau ed ymbol t be twi ted (Ritchey
rt n '

eke 200 ).

rton

au ed by d fi it in two neur bi 1 gical a pect ;

d that lean1ing di abilitie wer

weakne e in

ek ,

200 ).

and strepho. y mholia

lth ugh UITent re earch ha

h wn

riginal the 1ie ab ut 1 arning di abilitie , hi re earch ha gr atly

impacted th ev luti n of reading int rvention . Multi en

ry in tructi n grew ut of

rt n'

theory that 1 arning di abilitie were au ed by n urobi 1 gical factor . It wa thought that an
active, hand on approach u ing kin

thetic and ta tile en e w uld create a link and therefore

make phonological proce ing more efficient ( akland, Black, tanford , Nu baum , & Bali e,

1998).

nna Gillingham work d with

tillman, 1997). Orton reli d on Anna

amual

rt n a he c nducted hi re earch ( illingham &

illingham to creat in tructional trategi

reading intervention ba ed on conclu ion from hi re earch (Gillingham &

for remedial

tillman, 1997). The

Orton-Gillingham methodology wa the product of instructional trategie set out by Anna
Gillingham and Be ie Stillman, which were ba ed in Orton ' neurobiologica l the ry (Ritchey
oeke, 2006).The

rton-G illingham approach ( - ) i a multi en ory, tep by tep, equential

intervention for teaching phonemic awarene

(Lindsey & Zyl tra, 2002).

multi en ory in truction on: alphabet, penman hip new
compo iti n.

ach le on c ntain

und , reading, ight word and

sing kine thetic movements and tactile re ource , tudent I am new kill to

ma tery before moving ont the next le

n.

26

Orton-Gillin gham re earch
lthough diver

in re ult

th rei a large b dy f re

illingham appr a h a an interventi n fi r readin g di abiliti
have adopted a multi en

ry learnin g phi lo

(2006) reviewed 12 re ear h tudi
det nnin th

ffi a y of the

Rit hey and

eke

with e perim ntal r qu a i-e p rim ntal de ign t

ti n- illingham m

e tudi e

tate that th re i a long tanding
t th crit ri a fi r a ci ntifi ca ll y ba ed

e fi r examining th e re earch wa t detem1ine ifthi

program in fact me t the requirem ent . Th ey al
fficacy.

rt n-

1 ar und thew rld

rt n- illingham m eth d I gy. Parti ci1 ant in th

reading program. The auth r ' purp

program to examine it

. Many ch

phy fi r r adin g in tructi n.

ranged fr m primary to oll ege tud ent . T h auth r
di agre ment n wh eth r the

ar h n the ffica y f the

c mpare thi appr ach to th r readin g

tudi e included in thi

peer reviewed, tudied a multi en ory or

xamin ati on were ch

en ifth y were

rion- illingham appr ach, were ex perimental or

qu a i-expe1imental de ign and had a ampl e size of more th an 10 parti cipant . Through
examination of re earch tudi e , the auth r found evidence th at the

rion-Gillingham approach

i effective with truggling reader . However, they al o found vid ence th at it m ay not b any
better than other interventions. Although this appr ach ha been u ed by edu ator fo r year ,
there is a lack of re earch that ha any tati ti cal signifi canc that how it effectiven

a an

approach. Ritchey and Goeke call thi a "practi ce to re earch gap" (p. 12) . Du to the lack f
re earch th at is either peer reviewed r methodolo gically

und , it i di fficu lt to find e id n

that this approach i in fact effecti ve ove r other re earch-ba ed reading pro gram . However,
xaminati n of the tudi e in thi articl e did hi ghlight that in man
were h w n in th e area of w rd readin g, word attack kill , d
c mprehcn ion.

tud i

h w po iti ve r , ult

oding ability, . p !ling and

27

ch f:fl 1, haw and haw (2008) conducted a tudy in three chool which evaluated
suppl mental reading in tructi n through th
Multi - en ory ducation (IM
i ba ed on the

rton- illinghan1 m thodolo gy. The Institute for

) ha put tog ther a reading pro grmn for primary tud ent which

1ion- illingham m thod logy c pe and equ nc . The p arti ipants in thi

tud y were fir t grade tud ent from three dif:fl rent inner city sch ol . The participant were put
into either a c ntrol r tr atm ent group ; 4 76 in the c ntro l group and 224 in th treatm ent gro up .
Re earch r u ed th e D ynami c Indicators of B a ic
establish benchm ark thr e tim

arly Literacy kill (DIB LS) in order to

a year; fa ll wint r and pring. The treatinent group wa split

into three group , two of the gr up had low academic and one had average acade1ni c . The
control group was plit into nin e group , four of th e group had low academic and five of the
groups had average acade1nic . Both control and treatment gro ups received reading in truction
for 90 minutes a day, w ith the treatment group receiving 30 extra minute of instru ction through
the supplementary reading program . Teachers that p articipated were specially trai ned in the
Orton-Gillingham method fo r the stud y so that impl em entati on of the reading program was
standardized. Responses from nine teachers were coll ected and analyzed from a survey. After
analyzing this data, researchers fo und that all nine teachers were hi ghl y in favo ur of the
multisensory, Orton Gillinghmn approach and they would recommend it to other educators as
one way to remediate reading. A lthough many educators choose programs that have a strong
body of research, word of mouth about interventions can also be a strong factor when settling on
a reading remedi ation. Therefore, Scheffel, Shaw and Shaw (2008) argued that if t acher have
used the

Iion- illinghmn and witne s d re ults, their anecdotal perception and ob enration

hould be consid ered in additi n to any tati sti cal data on the approach. Data from thi

tud y

28

h wed that wh n ompared t the c ntr l gr up the treatlnent gr up h w d ignifi ant
pr gre

in th area f phonemic awarene

Ithough literatur ha

and kn wl dg

utlin d thi a the b

regarding wh ther it i an appr priate method.
the

Ii n- illingham appr a h d

t.

ntinue t be ad bat

t pra ti

o

cc rding t

hifd Le.ft B ehind Act (N

n t meet the riteria fl r being a

ba ed methodology. The t nnin 1 gy u ed in the
th word "explicit

f the alpha

i ntifically-re earched

LB Act urr unding ph nic in tructi n u e

y tematic ph me in tructi n. Allen (20 l 0) argu

r viewed r earch i lacking n thi m thod the
by the language in the

B),

that alth ugh peer-

appr ach fall under the pectrum laid out

LB act. Fmiher r earch c uld h w the efficacy of thi approach with

truggling r ader . Although critic

ugge t that cientific re earch behind thi approach i weak,

other literature ha given an cdotal evid nc a well a per onal experience to upport it a an
effectiv intervention. All n argue that thi anecd tal evidence hould not be ignored when
examining the efficacy of the

G approach. Thi author conclude thi article by tating that

much more cientific re earch i needed on thi topic, but through anecdotal evidence, it i an
approach that ha

hown improvement in the reading ability of children with dy lexia.

Teachers have the difficult task of choo ing cla room program a well a interven tion
for tho e who truggle. When a child i diagno ed with a lean1ing di ability, parent often get
more invo lved in their scho lin g to en ur they are receiving the a i tan e th y need . Ro e and
Zirkel (2007) examined a hi tory of court ca e that focu
to children with pecial need ; pecifi ally in thi ea
the Individual with Di abiliti
childr n with pecial need .
a ce

ct (ID

d pr

iding appr priate int rventi n

, 1 an1ing di abiliti

. In the

nited

tat

) provide out guid line for the education of
thi a t, all hildr n with di abiliti

appr priate pr gramming for their di stinct learning n

hould b able to

d and ha can indi idualizcd

,

29

ducation progrmn (I P). Ro

and Zirkel argu d that parent who have cho en a multi ensory

Orton- illingham ba d in truction forth ir children who have reading di abilitie

ee mark d

itnprovement. Although there i po itive upp rt from organization and parents, educators have
differing opinion about thi type of approach.

lthough there i a lack of tati tically ignificant

evidence that upport the efficacy of rt n- illingham program , it do e not mean that the
methodology hould di regard d.

ducator oft n u e, and are advo cate for progrmn that ar

not backed by tati tically ignificant data. In the p a t 30 year , there have been nun1erou court
ca es where par nt are fi ghting forth ir children to have

rton-Gillingham a part of their

intervention within th e school y tern becau e they beli eve it works.
The Orton-Gillingham method ology i u ed in many countri es around the world. Kok
Hwee and Hou ghton (2011) conducted a tudy with ingaporean stud ent who had a di agno i of
dyslexia. The purpose of the study was to examine the impact of the Orton-Gillingham program
on reading ability with students who have dyslexia. There were 76 parti cipants elementary
school stud ent , all of which had a diagnosis of dyslexia by an edu cati onal psychologi t. Each
participant received Otion-Gillingham tutoring after their school day, two tim e a week for onehour sessions. In addition to the children who participated, there were three teacher parti ci pant
who were trained in the Orton-Gillingham approach. This stud y was a pre-test/post-test
experimental design, in which the p articipants were assigned to 19 groups to receive instruction
at various titnes during the year. A baseline was found through administration of The Word
Recognition Test-Revi sed, The Schonell

raded Reading Test-Revised and The Salford

Sentence Readin g Test-Revised. The W ord Recognition Test-Revi ed is given to student

111

order to assess th eir Word Recognition Age. After hearing a word r ad, the tudent mu t find that
w rd, am ng other wo rd in th te t booklet. The Schonell

raded Readi ng Test-Revi ed

30

a e e a tudent ' vi ual ral dec din g ability.
a word li t until they make 10
a

a tudent

n

uti

h

mi tak

ral r ading ability. Th

tudent read a many w rd a they an n
. The

ity f thi

vari ance in rd er t detennin e parti cipant
and word expr

n, thi

tud

h wed

ent n

R adin g T

t-R evi

d

tud nt rall y read a gra ed p a age a w 11 a a

graded enten eli t. The mi cu e durin g th e e tc t ar re
ag i cal ulated. Du to th c mpl

alfl rd

tud y r

gain . In tw
rt n

rd d and th
a rcher u

d

tud nt

1nultivari ate anal y i of

f the area a e

illin gh am in tructi n wa

facilitated gain . Alth ugh th ere wa n t d pr gre

oral readin g

d , w rd rec gniti on
u cce ful and

in th e e area , however, in entence readin g

there were no ignifi cant gain .

Conclu wn

Within th edu cati onal community, there ha been a long- tandin g di cu i n on w hat
kind of role phoni c

hould pl ay in reading in tructio n in th e cia room . Th e purpo e of thi

literature rev iew wa two fold : to illu trate what re earch o utlin e are important characteri ti

of

phonic program and to an alyze a few w id ely- u ed phoni c program to concl ude w h ether th ey
fit wi th re earch-ba ed cri teri o n.

The Nati o nal R eading Panel report are a great re ource fo r edu cator when they are
analyzing w hat li teracy approach to u e in th eir practice. Th e report are con i t ntly updated
and give research-ba ed infonn ation regarding wh a t literacy approach i appropriate for pe ifi c
type

f learning di fference . Accordin g to the Natio nal R eading Pan l, an appropriat reading

interventi n for tud ent w ith pecifi de·fi cit in pho n mi c and ph no logi al awarene
th at cnco mpas e expli cit and y tcm ati phoni c in tru cti o n.

1

o ne

31

Th term xpli it, y t malic phonic de ri e an appr ach that teach

ph mc ski ll

thr ugh a direct teaching meth d 1 gy, which i

tructur d and engaging -D r th

tudent. A cording to the

th r re ear h, phoni

that fit int thi

ational Reading Panel a well a

rit rion h uld be c n id red b

t practi e'. In thi literatur review, re

from[! ur program or m th d I g1e w re ana1yz d: Read W 11,
Oti n-

pr grmn

iP

ar h

uided R ading and the

illingham appr ach . Th re ar h h w d that the e appr ache d fit th crit na f

b ing expli it and y t mati .

Wheth r re earch infonn t a hing practice i each educat r' individual d ci ion. More
re earch n

d to b condu t d on teach r'

p11110n

f ph nic a g neral approach in the

cla room. Al o, more infonnati n i n eded on what pecifically infonn teacher ' practice and
how they choo e intervention to fit div r e need when tudent have a pecific deficit in
reading.

32

hapter 3: Re earch Project

There ar thou and

fin tructi nal b

k and r

ur

that utlin e ph m

int rventi n.

Th r are many m anual that ar hi gh! r gard d b edu at r du t a vari ty f chara t ri ti c .
Thi pr j

t includ e a m anu al that utlin

h w t teach th

rt n- illingh am m eth d in a

m all group n ir nm ent. B fl r c n tru ti n f the m anual, a urvey wa

ondu t d with a

fl cu on illu trating teacher p r

pti n ab ut ph ni c pr gram in general. Thi

th con tructi on f the m anual.

llow in g th c n tructi n f th m anu al, a survey wa giv n to

co llect infonnation and feedb a k n th

urvey g uid ed

mpl t d m anu al fl r rcvi i n .

In th e follow ing chapter, each ecti n f th re earch tud y w ill be xpl ained in p ecifi c
detail. In the m ethodo logy ecti n , I w ill di cu
fo r parti cipant and m a ur m nt too l .

th e type of re earch tud y, amplin g pr

edure

ex t, data co ll ecti n and ana ly i w ill be o utlined in

detail. Finally, ther wi ll b an xpl anation of how the m anual fo r thi project wa con tru ted.

Methodology
Thi

tudy employed a cross- ecti onal urvey d

ign . It involved 10 participant who were

cho en u ing purpo eful ampl ing. In ord er to illu trate opini on about how educator

el

t

reading program and intervention , pariicipant were cho en accord ing to pecific crit ria. The
sample includ ed learning a i tance teacher , re ou rce teacher , primary teacher and tud nt
support pecialist . All partici pant had experi ence with putting read ing intervention into plac
with struggling reader wh have pecifi c r ading di abilitie .
The econd part of th e tud y wa a foc u gro up and had 5 participant . he e parti ipant
were cho en acco rding to th

arn e criteria a the fir t urve gr up . Participant rc i wed a draft

copy of a manu al and gave pecifi [! cd ack .

33

In order to adhere to thic , I began by getting c n nt frmn chool Di trict #57 to carry
out the tudy with teacher . I contacted

indy Heightlnan, principal of urriculmn and

In truction, with an overview of my pr po al. Due to the very pecific nature of the ample,
teach r that m

t the crit ria were contact d via en1ail, given a brief ov rview of the propo al

and a ked to be a part of the tudy. Informed con ent wa obtained from all participant .

11 data

collected wa anonymou and hr dded at the cmnpJ tion of the tudy. During the tudy, all data
wa

tored in a lock d cabinet. For thi project, data were collected from a variety of ource .

There were three ets of data given in order to collect infonnation to improve the manual: a
questionnaire focus group and po t-focu group.

Ques tionnaire con truction. Each que tionnaire £ r this tudy wa created in consultation
with my supervi or, Dr. Andrew Kitchenham . The fir t questionnaire u ed in this study mainly
consisted of open-ended questions . It had 13 question , both open-ended and clo ed-ended.
Questionnaires were web-based, using Fluidsurvey, and e1nailed to pmiicipants. They had two
weeks to return the questimmaire. Que tions included the following topic : year of
experience/area of teaching, perception of phonics based reading intervention progrmns, how
they choose reading intervention progrmns and specifically what they look for in a teaching
resource. The data collected from the questiom1aire guided the con truction of the manual. The
manual was then given to a focus group for di scussion. The first step in this research was to give
participants a questionnaire that asked teachers opinions regarding phonics as an approach for
reading, in general. This questimmaire contained 12 question in total ; 10 clo ed-ended questions
and two open-ended question .

Focus group. Many researchers u e focu group to carry out their research a they are
regarded to have value a are earch methodology for a variety of rea ons (Wibeck & Dahlgren,

34

2007). By d finition, a focu group i approxi1nately 4 to 6 participant that 1n t to di cu

a

particular topic (Wibeck & Dahlgren, 2007). The purpo e of focu gr up i to gather
infonnation to under tand perception and opinions from a elected gr up f p ople. The
moderator' job i to direct and guide th conver ation during a e ion that i usually betw en
30 to 90 minute in duration (Wibeck & Dahlgr n, 2007).
Aft r the con truction of the 1nanual, once it was in draft fonn , participant exatnined the
manual in a focu group. Th focu gr up con i ted of 5 participant who were ch
purpo eful ampling according to pecific criteria. Re ource teacher

n usmg

admini tration and early

primary clas room teacher were given the manual to examine. The focu group occuned at
Spruceland Traditional Elementary in there ource romn. All participants were given an
infonned consent via email. During the focu group, participant were asked general and specific
question about the manual which guided the focu group di cussion. The focu group la ted
hour.

Value of a focus group. The focus group methodology has many strengths and rea on

why it is widely used by many researchers (Liamputtong, 2011 ). It is a qualitative methodology
with a main focus of looking at attitudes, opinions and perception of a selected group of people
(Kruger, 1994). Kruger (1994) argues that a n1ore in depth analysis occurs with qualitative
1nethodologies, such as focu s groups, over quantitative 1nethodologie . The relationship and
interaction between researcher and patiicipant's produces good qualitative data and in tum
valuable information (Kruger, 1994). Liatnputtong (2011) uggested that focu group are
particularly valuable for two main rea ons. The methodology let researchers look at a group of
di ver e individual and gain an under tanding about what opinion they hold (Liamputtong,

35

20 11 ). An i1nportant part fa fl cu group i fl r th m d rator to cr ate a afl

nviromnent for

partici pant to op n up about th ir thought and fe ling r garding a pecific i u . R

archer

can 1 ok at th different pariicipant and gain in ight into th ir interaction a well a how th ir
pecific opinion may be fl nned according to th ir circum tance ( iamputtong, 2011 ).
Liamputtong (20 11) argued that it i a fl

ible 1nethodology due t the ability to u e it with a

multitud of diffl rent sample group and topic .

uring a fl cu gr up , re earchers can gather

infonnation from participants in a non-pre ure envir nm nt (Liamputtong, 2011). Rather than
have to make deci ion or com to an agree1nent, participant are imply di cu ing and stating
their opinion on the topic being r

arched (Liamputtong, 2011 ). Greenbaum (2000) argued the

1no t important trength of focu group i that the participant are actively participating in th
research proce s because they are watching th r earch occur.

Importan ce of th e moderator. In focus group re earch, the role of the 1noderator i integral
to the success of the focus group. The moderator ha a variety of roles including but not limited
to ; consultant, plam1er, project coordinator, facilitator and analy t (Greenbaum, 2000).

Data collection and analysis
The teacher perception questionnaires and focus group data were analyzed using a
qualitative methodology. The second focus group survey wa analyzed using a quantitative
methodology. First, the participants' responses were segmented and coded. When the coding wa
complete, the codes were analysed and put into sitnilar themes. Data from the examination of
thetnes provided information regarding teacher perceptions of the manual and of the Ortonillingham approach in general. From the outcome of the urvey , teacher p rception about
using a ph nic approach were highlighted. Th data from the initial questionnaire al o guided

36

n tru ti n . Data fr In th fl u gr up pr

tnanual

h w it an be adapted and changed in rder t

Manual

r

ided input ab ut th manual and h wed
te an effi ient re

urce fort a her .

on truction

r thi pr ject I created a manual whi h adapted th
d liv r t

mall gr up within a

h

1i n-

etting.

rt n

ill ingham i a tru tured equential

pe ifi training. It i an appr ach that

appr ach that ha

environment t a i t man

tudent wh hav

illingham appr ach for

uld be u ed in a mall gr up

peeific ph nemie pr

e ing deficit . However, a

manual i ne ded to tandardize am th d f delivery in rder to maintain the integrity f the
approach.

rton

illingham le

Zyl tra, 2002). The multi en

n ar multi

n

ry nature of ach 1

ry, tructured and equential (Lind ey and
n engage each en e by u ing kine thetic

and tactile trategie for better retenti n of the kill taught.

There are 10 main component of an

rt n- illingham approach: equencing, penman hip ,

alphabet, vi ual drill , auditory drill , dictionary, phonogram

ight word , compo ition and

reading. For each of the e components there will be a conci e one page ummary.

ach le

n

tarts with learning a new sequence uch a day of the week, colour of the rainb w or month
of the year. During the alphabet ection, student lean1 about the equen e of the alphabet
through alphabet team . There are four team ; at am , h team , n t am and u team . Thi divi 10n
into team let

tudent work on the alphabet in manageable part . In the ne t part, p nman hip,

stud nt learn the fl rmation of letter through direct mod ling n t
learned u ing the vi ual repre entation of ky, gra , and ground .
are shown tla h card

tiler our e . Printing i

uring th

i ual drilL tud cnt

f ph n gram that they have been taught. Tactile mat arc u

thr ugh ut thi drill when tudent make error ; the tra e the letter a th

d

a , ound 'On e ' tl

h audit ry drill i wh n tud nt li ten to a ound ai orall , identify it and w rit it down.

37

pelling word with known ounds are practiced at thi point in th les on. imultane u
pelling i an integral part of th 0letter connection neurologically.

methodology. Thi allow

he next ection f th 1

ral

tudent to 1nak the ound to

on 1 wh n tudent learn their new

ound; in thi program they call it new ph no gram. The fir t task in thi part f the le on 1 to
di cover th new ound.

tudent u e audit ry di crimination of words aid to di cover their new

phonogram. They then carry out variou activitie containing the new ound ; bl nding practice,
pelling and reading ta k . Within each le on i a time for reading. Material i cho en at their
in tructionallevel the level at which they can r ad pa sage with some upp01i. Finally, a new
sight word is taught.

ight word are considered "red l tter" word , which means that they need

to know them by sight. Through a numb r of multisen ory methods, tudents learn what the e
words look like. Dictionary kill and writing kills are taught a needed. If a tudent need the e
skills, they are worked into the les ons.
First, the n1anual explained each cmnponent in terms of methodology and teaching
teclmiques. Behavioural expectations are also et out in this ection. For example, in the
penmanship section, behaviour expectations are that the student sit up straight, have their eyes
and one hand on the paper, maintain a proper grip on the pencil, etc. Next, there is specific
explanation on the sequence of the lesson. There is a 111aterials list and instructions on how to
use the materials for each tep of the lesson. A multisensory methodology i central to the OrtonGillinghmn approach. For educators that are new to this approach, the workload to create lesson
can be overwhelming and stressful. For the multisensory component, the manual will include
specific example and pictures of what could be us d as well a how to tore the e mat 1ia l .

38

Conclu ion
The central re earch que tion for thi

tudy wa , "What do educat r look for when

choo ing a phonic -ba ed lit racy intervention?" Thi
de ign that con i ted of 10 participant .
in truction and r m diating reading.

tudy empl y d a cro - cti nal survey

ll participant had experience with t aching reading

[! cu group wa conducted in order to gather[! dback on

a draft manual. During a po t-focu gr u1 , data w r collect d on how the participant p rceived
the change to the draft manual that occurred according to their feedback. The focus group wa
guided by general and pecifi que tion .
Data were collected from three source : a teacher-perception questiom1aire, focus group, and
po t-focus group. The teacher-perception que tiom1aire contained 13 que tions in total. There
were 11 closed-ended que tions that were analyzed according to a quantitative methodology;
specifically, averages and frequency counts. There were two open-ended questions that were
analyzed according to a qualitative methodology.
The purpose of the conducting the focus group was to guide the construction of the manual.
The manual adapted an Otion-Gillingham methodology for a small -group environment.

eared

towards educators, the purpose of creating this manual was to give important infonnation about
this multisensory approach. The manual outlines n1aterials needed and explains each ection of
the Orton-Gillingham tutoring hour.

39

Chapter 4: Data Analy is
In the follow chapter data fr In r earch c nduct d wi ll be examined. Data were
coll ected from two ource : a teacher p rc ption qu e tioru1air and a foc us group. Th specific
detail of ach 111 a ur ment tool will b outlined a w ll a

pecific m thodology u ed to

analyz all data collected.
In order to organize th e data from the teacher percepti on qu
was given a valu e. To en ure an w r

ti onnaire, each re ponse

tay d an nym ou , parti cip ant were giv n a number from

one to ten. There were nine qu e tion that had the fi llowing valu e : tro ngly agree (4) , agree (3),
disagree (2) and trongly di agree (1 ). There were three qu e tions that had th e foll owing valu es:
very important (3), important (2) and not important (1 ). Tho e value were then put into an excel
document and analyzed . The data was analyzed using sin gle-item analy is. Specifi cally, the
average and frequency counts for each que ti onnaire ite1n were detennined.

ingle- item analys is

was the most appropriate measure1nent tool to use for this qu estionn aire. Since many of the
questions are rating agreement or importance, it will give a clear and ea y representation of thi
tneasure on each item of the qu estionnaire.

Questionnaire Data
Quantitative Data.

ducators have a vmiety of different factor that influence how and

why they choose a reading intervention. Table 1 hows pmiicipants respon ses to que tion fi ve on
the teacher que ti oJmaire. When asked if researched-ba ed approaches were of importance, nine
out often of parti cipants either agreed (n=4) or strongly agreed (n=S) that they would choo e a
program with trong tati tical evid ence th at proves it

fficacy . Table 2 show parti cipants

re pon es t questi n six on the que tionnaire. When a k d if teach r choo e prO!:,'Tam or

40

trategi

that colleague hav tried and fl und ucc

Throughout the literature andre earch nth

ful there wa 100% agr e1nent.

ubject f phonic program and intervention ,

researcher oft n focu on wheth r the program i re earch-ba ed. Thi data h w that there are
oth r factor for teach r when choo ing a r ading program rather than olely ba ing th ir choice
on re earch. Thi

ample of participant

how d that id a and ugg

tion from their tru t d

colleague is al o an important factor in their deci ion making proce
Table 1

Re ponse to Que tion Five on the Teacher urvey (n =1 0); all numbers are raw scores
Please r es ond to th e followin statem ent
It is important that a reading intervention program is researched-ba d
and has strong statistical evidence to its efficacy.

SD
1

D

A
4

SA

A
4

SA

5

Table 2

Respon es to Que tion Six on the Teacher Survey (n =JO),· all numbers are raw cores
Please r es ond to th e follow in statem ent
When choosing a reading intervention, I choose interventions or strategie
that my colleagues have suggested or have had success with

SD

D

6

Another important factor when educators choose an intervention is the pecific
characteristics of that program. One of the main purposes of this study was to gain infonnation
about what teachers generally teachers looked for in a reading program. Table 3 how
participants responses to question three on the questionnaire. Thi question look at general , bi g
ideas or important characte1istics that teachers look for in a reading intervention manual. Data
gathered frmn this question will improve the proposed manual by guiding what to include and
what to dismiss .

41

ab le

R pan

to Qu lion Thr

on th

~ a

her urv y (n =I 0) ,· all numb rs are raw scar s

D
an educator what is your opinion of th e follo w in g
tatement about what characteri tic you look for in a
readin g intervention
An interventi n that i re arch-ba d
An interventi n that lleagu hav menti ned wa effective
n int rv ntion that ha a ph netic and r ph nemic appr a h
Multi n ry or hand n in tru ti n
A reading interv nti n ba d n a balanced literacy appr a h
An int rv nti n that c ntain material that are ngaging [! r
tudent

Perceived imp rtant charact ri tic that were ch
interventi n an interventi n that colleagu
awarene

focu ed , a multi

D

A

4

3
6

5
2

4
1

6
9

en to be examined included ; are earch-ba ed

u , an approach that i ph netic/phonemic

n ory appr ach, a balanced literacy approach and an intervention

that i engaging for tudent . Overwhelmingly, ten out of ten (1 OOo/o) of patiicipant agreed or
trongly agreed that they following characteri tic were important; phonetic/phonemic
awarenes , multi en ory or hand on in truction , balanced litera y approach and engagin g
material . Teacher ranked the e general characteri tic as imp rtant and therefore, th ey will be
incorporated into the manual.

nee a teacher ettle on a pecific approach, the fir t tep in implementing the
interv ention is 1 oking at the teacher' s manual. The cia room or leaming a i tance
environment are uch bu y place , an appr ach that i ea y to follow i integral. If in tru ti on
manual are onerou and har to foll w , the int rvcntion will be hard to m anage and could be
p tentially di

ntinu d in th cia ro m or mall group . In ord r to hi ghli ght p r 'Cptions,

42

participant w rea ked to con id r ix main p cific charact ri tic and rank the1n in ten11 of
importance. Tabl four h w participant re pon

to qu

tion four on the teacher qu

tionnaire.

Table 4

Re pan e to Que tion Four on the Teacher urvey (n =10),· all number are raw cores
Statement
Please rank specific characteri tic that you look for in a
manual according to ln1portance.
lear layout
Ea y to follow in truction
Blacklined Ina ter of material included
Picture
Examples
Con ideration of different learning

NI

2
l

I

VI

2
2
4
3
4
3

8
6

5
6
6

These characteri tic were; clear layout, a y to follow instruction , black lined rna t r , pictures,
examples and consideration of different lean1ing tyles. Not surpti singl y, ten out of ten
participants ranked clear layout and easy to follow instructions as either important (n=2) or very
important (n=8). When looking at the use of pictures in a 1nanual, the results were more mixed.
Eight out of ten participant ranked pictures a either very important (n=S) or important (n=3 ).
Surprisingly, two out often participants ranked pictures as not important when choosing a
manual. During a teacher 's career, they are constantly looking for resources to u e for their
lessons whether it is work heets, crafts, or manipulative . For black lined masters, nine out of ten
participants (90%) ranked it as very i1npmiant (n=6) and as important (n=3). The ]a t
characteristic that participants ranked was consid eration of different learning styles.
Differentiated learning is a common theme when 1 oking at what i con id red 'be t practice'
within the cla sroom . Participant agreed with thi theory, with nine out of ten participant
ranking it as very important (n=6) or impotiant (n= ). Th r ults from this qu

tionnaire data

43

how thi

ample of teach r place high impmiance on the pecific characteri tic cho en to

exa1nine. Th characteri tic that participant placed importance on will b incorporated into th
manual. Th e include: clear lay ut, ea y to :D llow in truction

pictures black lin d ma ter

exa1nple and con ideration of differ nt 1 an1ing tyle .

The c ntral purpo e of thi

tudy wa to examin teacher

op1mon of phonic

in truction in g neral and what place it h uld pla y in reading in truction . Table 5 show
participant re pon e to que ti n sev n on the tea her que tionnair .

Table 5

Responses to Que tion Seven on the Teacher Sun1ey (n =10),· all numbers are raw score
Statement
For each statement, please choose what accurately des cribes your
opinion on using phonics for a readin g in struction in general
Phonics hould only be used a an intervention for truggling readers
Phonics instruction should be given to all children who are learning to
read
Phonics instruction should never be used when teaching reading

SD D

A

SA

4
1

6
6

3

8

2

Overwhelmingly, 1OOo/o of participants disagreed (n=6) or strongly di agreed (n=4) that phonics
should never be used when teaching reading. When looking at phonics in general in truction,
nine out of ten pmiicipants agreed (n=6) or strongly agreed (n= 3) that phonic intervention
should be given to all students. Interestingly, one pmiicipant di sagreed with this state1nent. When
asked if phonics should only be given to students who struggle with reading, 1OOo/o of
participants disagreed with this tatement. This data shows that this sample of participant had
the opinion that phonics should be a part of general cla room reading in truction. The e brief
result al o illu trate that there may be a demand for a progra m which i ba d on y tematic
phonic for classroom instruction .

program uch as Orton- illingham could be preferable for

44

many t ach r . Thi p rcei ed n ed, ther fi re

upp rt th

cia r om teach r , lean1ing a i tance teacher

reati n fa manual g ared t ward

r educati nal a i tant .

Table 6

R pon e. to Que tion Eight on the Teacher
7

,

WI ' 7Y (n = 1 0),· allnumh 7 rS ar

tatement
For each tatement, plea e choo e what accurately de crib e your
opinion about phonic in truction bein g u cd for remediate rea din g
intervention.
h uld alwa be a larg part fa rem diate reading interventi n
Ph ni
Phonic hould be a mall pa1i fa remediate reading interventi n
Phon ic hould never be a part of a r mediate reading intervention

Anoth r mam purpo e f thi

raws ·ore.

D

1
4

D

A

4

5
7

A

2

6

tudy wa to illu trate teacher' perception ab ut phonic

a a remedial reading intervention fi r tho

tudent with pecific learning di abi liti e . Re!,TUlar

cia room reading in truction i one i ue, remedial reading in truction can be quite different.
Although ometime , p ciali treading teacher are re pon ible for g iving orne reading
in truction, it often fall on the classroom teacher. A forth importanc one hould place n
phonic , the data how that it varie when looking at remediating reading in truction with
out of ten participant

aying it should be a large part. Tab] 6 how participant re p n e to

que tion eight on the teacher questionnaire. Re ponses to the tatement that phonics hould n ver
be a part of remedial reading were expected .

verwhelmingly, ten out of ten parti ipant either

di agreed (n=6) or trongly di agre d (n=4) with thi statement. Therefi r , thi
collectively participants ha the opinion that phoni

amp! of

should play a part in remedial reading

in tructi n.

Qualitative Data. or the teacher percepti n qu

tionnaire, there were t o que, tion, that

were analyzed u ing a qualitative methodolog . T begin the ·oding ani th ming proce,,, l fir ·t

45

went back to 1ny central re earch qu ti n f th

tud y what do educator lo k for when

choo ing a phonic -ba ed literacy int rv nti n? Mor

pecifically, the

que tionnaire were trying to uncov r ducat r ' opinion

que tion on th

n u ing a phonic -ba ed literacy

program in their teachin g practi c . To rganiz thi data, u ing an excel pread h
cr at d a tabl th at had tw

t; I fir t

lumn , one fl r each que ti n. I input th t n parti cipant r pon e

into the table o that all r pon e would b on on page and vi ually ea y to analyze.
If participant agr ed to th que ti n" n

rton- illingham approach i an appropri ate

interventi on to use with tru ggling readers" they were a ked a a fo ll ow up to expl ain
specifically why they agreed. The pecifi c f thi qu estion was to find out edu cator percepti on
about the Orton-Gillingham approach as an intervention. Participant 2, 5, 6 and 7 had no answer
to thi question. It i uncl ear if the lack of re pons i becau e th ey di sagreed with th e tatement
or if they missed the questi on completely. There was an option to choose strongly agree, agree,
disagree or strongly disagree. All parti cipants that 1nissed thi s qu esti on al o answered th at they
had no knowl edge of the Orton-Gillingham approach. One assumpti on about thi s mi ssing data is
that the parti cipants disagreed to the question, failed to cli ck the di agree button and then
subsequently did not beli eve they needed to explain their answer. Through the coding proces ,
one major theme that became evident wa trust in professional opini on. One participant tated
that "tru ted coll eagues tell 1ne that they have had good succe s with thi approach". Thi theme
was prevalent as four out of six participants menti oned that through conver ation with
co ll eagues they have learned that Orton-G illinghan1 is an effecti ve intervention. Codes that lead
to a minor theme were; hi ghl y successful , tructured approach, found ucce s, appropriate
interventi on and effecti ve. Thi s minor theme wa successful int rvention.

n participant tat ,

"I hav heard through coll eagues that thi s reading int rvention is highly succe ful" .

46

Th

econd qu

practice wh n ch
qu

ti n analyzed a ked t ach r op11110n on what they con ider to b 'be t'

ing an interv nti n fi r a tudent wh ha a p cific 1 arning disability. Th

tion wa "when h

ing a reading interventi n fi r a tud nt who ha a pe ific reading

di ability what d you beli v i them

t effe ti e trategy plea e explain". Participant number

two and fiv did not give an an w r t thi que ti n . Th following c de became apparent
through analyzing thi que ti n· id ntifying pecific need , diffi r ntiat d 1 arning, diagn
a e ment and numerou different pr gram . The

tic

code lead to one major theme:

Differentiated in tructi n. Participant identified differ ntiated in truction a one of the mo t
important factor when planning for a child with a pecific learning di sability. According to
many of the participant , eJecting apr gram that uit the tudent ' pecific need is fir t tep in
any effective intervention. Out of the eight respon e , five of the participants mentioned tailoring
the intervention to the specific need of th

tudent. After finding the major theme and looking at

the other codes, a minor theme emerged. Many pa1iicipant had answered with specific
interventions that they thought were important; decoding, comprehension, phonetic/phonemic
awareness and daily reading. Two minor themes that emerged were balanced literacy approach
and phonological awareness. Three out of eight patiicipants pecifically tated phonological
awarenes and decoding skills were the most effective trategies. One participant tated clearly
that a balanced approach was extremely important in their clas room practice. They mentioned
that a balanced approach means "knowing my tudent, identifying their need and providing a
balanced approach between decoding and comprehen i n" .
Focu G roup

ln rder to gather data on the perceived effi acy of thi manual, a draft m nual wa gtven
t 5 patiicipant . The focu group ran for ne hour and wa held at pru eland Traditional

47

lem ntary in th r ourc r

m. The parti ipant were a ked p cific que tion

conv r ation and g t them back nto t pic during th

e i n . The participant had 1nany po itive

co1nm nt when a ked what g n rall y they lik d ab ut th e manual.
wa vi ually appealing and they reall y liked the phot
manu al.

nly to guide

11 participant agr ed that it

that ace mpani d th text throughout th

ne participant m nti n d th at h thought that the man ual pr 1 ad ed the tudent w 11,

the ecti on on etting e pectation and etting the climate get th e children involved in th ir
own lean1ing.

Along with th po iti v , parti cipant gave excell ent con tru ctive criti ci m of the m anu al.
One patiicipant aid that

m e of th e expectati on were word ed in a negati ve way and h uld be

worded m ore po iti vely. The

rton- illingham approach i a lot to expl ain therefore,

parti cipant felt like the m anu al hould be more p ecifi c with orne detai l . For exampl e, th ere
hould be more expl anati on a to what the t acher doe and what the stud ent does during le on
There is a lot of tenninology that i specifi c to the Orton-G illingham approach.

ne partici pant

mentioned that she wa very confused by all of the tenninology when it wa used during the
le sons. The feedback was th e exi ting terminology li st should includ e m ore tenn s a well a
pictures would be helpfu l for each definiti on. Along thi s simil ar topi c, participants felt a if the
exampl es throughout the manual needed m ore explanation. Tenn s that were u ed, ne ded to be
more consistent throughout the manual. For exampl e, two wo rd for a simi lar manipul ati ve
hould not be used interchangeabl y, like tactil e surface and traci ng mat. When the patii cipant
were a ked what they specifically wo uld add to the manual, ea h per on gave om ething
different. The e things incl uded ; a tab le of c ntcnt , an appcndi with pecific e ampl e of
re

urce , a link of web ite fore ten ion , a ample le son plan and a diagno ti c as c 'ment.

48

ne mam purp

e f having a focu gr up t

what populati n f ducator a manu allik thi

amine th manual wa t g t [! edback on

h uld b g ar d t ward ; for exampl ,

m teach r , 1 an1ing a i tanc t ach r or edu cati nal a i tant . The c n en u
b tw

n p arti cipant wa that thi m anual wa laid out t p by t p and w uld b effecti ve wh en

impl ementing the approach. urth nn r
impl em ented by one con i tent per

all parti cipant agreed that the approach need d to be

n n a dail y ba i in a m all gr up envir nm ent. Thi

probabl y would wo rk be t a a m all gr up pull out from the lean1ing a i tance teach r r an
educational a i tant.

ne parti ipant mention d that hew uld bet o ov rwhelmed

impl m enting it in th e cl a roo m w ith all of th di tracti on
parti cipant tat d that he would definitely u
the approach into hi current dail y 1

ccurring all th e time. A nother

th m ethodology and incorporate the prin cipal of

on pl anning.

Adapted Orton-G illin gham Manu al

The data co ll ected and analyzed impacted and guid ed th e revi ion of th e manual. The
fi rst chapter of the m anual is an introducti on to the Orton-G illingham methodology. This chapt r
first defines what a multi en ory approach hould look like. Important a pect of the approach
are explained; scop e and sequ ence and di agnostic a sessment. The cope and sequence of the
approach as well as a di agnostic asse sment are both includ ed in appendix A.

inc thi approach

can be so in-depth, chapter one a! o outline impotiant tenni nology that will be u ed throughout
the manual. During the rev ision, thi s ecti n wa

di t d

d d more term and made the

definiti ons more pecifi c. Thi i a fas t paced, equential approach tha t ha a lot of infonnation to
teach within an hour.

haptcr one als o utlin e impotiant in formation about room etup,

re ource , etting ex pectati on of b th teacher and tud ent as w 11 a how to communicat tho
expectati on .

49

hapt r two utline what pe ific mat rial are n

ded fi reach ecti n f th le

There i a mat rial li t and lab 1 d picture fi r the fi 11 wing ecti n
le

OIY fi

rt n- illingham

cu w rk , alphabet, vi ual drill audit ry drill ph n gram and ight w rd. In the fi cu

group parti cipant lik d th pi tur
pi ctur

f the

n.

to m ak it clearer.

that ac

mpani ed th e

lanati n but wanted lab 1 D r th

uring the r vi i n lab 1 d were ad d d t all pi ture t expl ain wh at

th ey were.

hapter thr e i the I
ex pl ained in d tail and in lud

n pl anning p rti n f th m anu al.

a h ecti n of th e le on 1

a m at ri alli t a well a

f th e equ ence ft he le on .

pecific

Th e m ain ection of th e t tal tut rin g h ur are· fi c u w rk, alph abet, vi ual drill , audit ry drill ,
phonogram le on and ight w rd le

n . T he fi cu wo rk pati of th e le on begin th e tutoring

hour by grounding th e tud ent and get th em ready to learn . T hi can be any activity that brin g
them into the group etting all owing them to g t ettl ed uch a dot to dot

col ur by number or

overl ean1ing of previou learn ed kill . A lph abet i th e next p rti o n of th e les o n w here tud ent
learn the sequ ence of the alph ab et. If tud ent have m a tered th e alph abet, they are taugh t ther
important equence

uch a days of the week and/or m onth of the y ar. During the vi ual drill

section of the lesson, tud ent practi ce recogni z ing a letter or a gro up of letter and aying th
corresponding so und that have been taught and are known to them . The auditory dril l ha
tudent practice li teni ng to known or learned ounds and printi ng the cone ponding I tter or
letter ounds. The next ection of the le on i when tud ent learn their new phonogram. Th
u e many multi en

ry techniqu e to learn thi new ound . The ight word potiion of the 1 • on

teache the tud ent a new ight w rd . T he e word are ca ll ed 'red 1 tter' word b ~a use ou are
n tab le to

und them o ut. T he la t thi ng in the le on that the . tud nt will do i revic\ all of

the new c nc pt that they have I arned .

50

Feedba k fr m th focu group highlighted the need for a mor comprehen iv app ndix.
Th r are thr e appendix
B i a diagno tic a

; app ndi

ment and appendi

the

rt n- illingham cope and equ nee
a ampl le

appendix

n plan for the tut ring h ur.

51

Orton-Gillingham
Tutoring Hour
Adapted for Small Group Instruction

"I hear and I forget. I see, and I remember. I do, and I understand" Chinese Proverb

This manual has been produ ce d to give interested educa tors specific ideas on
how to ada t the Orton -Gillingham a proa c h for delivery to a small group
within a schoo l setting.

52

Step by step

Multisensory

Structured

Systematic

Sequential

Resources that complement and enhance teaching in a small group have been
suggested. Pictures of resources that have been used successfully have been
included.
The Orton-Gillingham approach is direct instruction in a "total language hour".
This manual gives instruction for each integral part of this approach:
Focus work
Penmanship
Alphabet
Visual Drill
Auditory Drill
Phonogram
Sight Word

Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Orton-Gillingham Approa ch .................................. !

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Multisensory
Scope and Sequence
Important Terminology
Room Set-Up
Resource Placement
Communicate th Expectations
Setting th limat

53

Chapter 2: Materials Needed ............................................... ................... .. .......... .. ....... 6

•
•
•
•

Focus Work
Alphabet /P nmanship
Visua l Drill/ Auditory ril l
Phonogram/ ight Word

Chapter 3: Orton-Gillingham Lesson .............. ...... .... .. ... ... ...... ......... ........................ .. .11

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Focus Work
Alphabet
Penmanship
Visual Drill
Auditory rill
Phonogram Lesson/Rule lesson
Sight Words

Appe ndix A

Complete Scope and S quence

Appe ndix B

Diagnostic Assessment

Chapter 1 :

54

Introduction to Orton-Gillingham
Methodology

Multisensory
•

The Orton-Gillingham methodology is known for its highly multisensory
nature of the lessons.
• A multisensory approach is highly engaging for students, particul arly
for those who may struggle with learning.
• However, an approach such as this can be overwh elming du e to all th e
Stuff' that you need to make, buy and hav e!
11

Scope and Sequ e n ce
•

The scope and sequence of th e Orton-Gillin gham appro ach is an
important part of the program's success. As a sequenti al a pproach to
t eaching phonics, each lesson builds on the next.
• Th er e are 120 lessons in total
• See App endix A for th e compl ete scop e and sequ ence

Diagn ostic Assessment
• The first st p befor b ginning in tru ction is to conduct a short
di gnostic ass sm nt on th stud nts' kill .

55

•

See Appendix B for a complete diagnostic assessment.

Important Terminology
);;;>

Language Keys Drill Deck ("LKDD deck")
-A deck of cards that includes all the phonograms on them with the
corresponding key pictures on the back.

);;;>

Tactile surface
- Material that is soft or has a lot of texture can be made into mat.
- Textured paper
- Rice/sand box. Put a bright colour of paper on the bottom so the
students can see what they have created.

);;;>

Tracing mat
-A textured piece of fabric or paper that the students can us e to trace on
with their finger.

);;;>

Key Object
- For each new phonogram taught, th er e should be a key obj ect to
show th e student. This is a physical obj ect th at r eprese nts th e new
phonogram. For example, a toy apple for the phonogram a.

);;;>

Sky,Grass,Ground
- A m ethod of t eaching penma nship with thr colou red lin es;
brown forth ground, gre n for th e gras and blue fo r th e ky.
- Using th sky, grass, ground ys te m promot for m atio n while
stud nts r I rning to print.

56

~

Record page
-A worksheet for students to practice and reinforce the skills that they
learned in the lesson.

Room Se tup
The students are in this room for a specifi c program - thi s setting needs to
reflect organization:
• Rectangular table
• Chairs at appropriate height for all members of group
• Slim cushions for back and seat

Resource Pl acement
• At each students place, on the back of their ch airs, tape a Ziplo c bag
with a tracing mat, pencil and eraser. These are res ources used
consistently throughout th e lesson.
• Focus activity - not all students arrive at th e same tim e
- have a focu s activity at each spot.
- Explain thi s activity at th e end of th e previous lesson. Each stu dent
should be abl e to meet with success (a small bookl et of easy focus
activiti es can be made for each stud ent) .
• Tabl e should be cl ear at all tim es since res ources will be continuously
past around
• Have all materi al on a s1nall t abl e or bin beside the table th e stud ents
are using.
•

Keep stud nt' s LKDD tog th r on a ring on a hook t up wh er they
can r each it wi th th ir t r ing m t. Show th m how to put their new
card on th rin g

57

•

Seat students on the left of the teacher that may be more capable
students. By the time each student has compl ted a short task and it
has moved to the end or the right of the table therefore students sitting
at the far right there have watched the process and will be more
primed the task efficiently.

Communicate the Expectations
•

Using language they understand, discuss th rul s of the group with the
students
-Example. Please walk to the room

•

Demonstrate how to sit in the chair-Have a visual of appropriate
posture.

•

Hands can be placed in lap or "bunny hands on the table"

•

Model how to make eye contact and look at resources

• After completion of each lesson - students will silently line up. Ask 2
questions of each student about the lesson (this is their 'ticket out the
door')
The most important thing is to foster self-esteem and confidence in a quiet
learning environment. If they are challenged in small ways, they will meet
with success. Setting up routines and expectations are integral to the OrtonGillingham approach.

58

Expectations of Student and Teacher
•

Expectations should be taught in direct and xplicit mann r b for
starting the Orton-Gillingham qu nc . Writ th xpectations on ch rt
paper so that you c n refer to them quickly or th y cans rv s non verbal reminder to the stud nt during I sson .

Expectations for students
•

Clear voices when speaking

•

Specific way in which to 'say th story' during phonogram le son
-Example, o says fo/ for octopus

•

Clip consonants
-Examp le, b says /b/ NOT fbuh/!

•

Correct mat tracing-- tracing to be accurate and neat

•

Discuss appropriate ways to use manipulatives.
- Manipulatives can easily become toys. Discuss with student that
these are tools for their learning.

Teacher's Phrases/Corrective feedback:
'

•

~~watch how my lips move when I say this ''

•

II

•

Elbows don't belong on the table, thank you
Please sit up properly, thank you"

Listen to my voice"

•

II

•

If a behavior is not helpfut say show me that you're ready to learn"
thank you.
II

Minut s make a differenc , if you don't waste th m, stud nts won't ither.
Rul s of the OG small group need to b d man trat d nd mod 11 db c u if
v ry stud ent knows wh tis xp ct d th y will ctu lly r mind
h oth r
nd th gro up b com quit coh iv
ying 'th nk you' ft rev ry dir ctive
haws r p ct nd it tu lly work

60

Setting th e Climate
•

Before beginning ny instruction, it is import nt to s t th climat
with your new students.

•

Orton-Gillingh a m is

multi

n ory,

qu nti I ppro ch for

remediating r e ding. Stud nt should fir st b ta ught what
multis e nsory m e ns nd why it i import nt forth ir lea rning. It is
important th t th e stud nts r e directly t ught thi s cone pt, b for
beginning th e pro gram.
•

In this program, the stud e nts use four of th e m a in se nses consist e ntly
in order learn th e concepts (VAKT. V=Vi su a C K=Kin esth etic,
A=Auditory and T=Ta ctil e).

------- -~ '-------1
- - - - ----:;:;. I
' - - - - - - - - --

-----'

Tactile (Touch)

Lesson Idea
•

Create a mu lti sensory board th at stud ents ca n put each of the en es
onto whi le they are learnin g abo ut it.

Need:
- A picture or cut out of stud nt
- Th 5 body p rts th t c rr spond with s n
( y , r, tongu , h nd,
no e). The obj ct should h v v lcro on th m
th t th tud nt n
m nipul t th m nd ti k th m to h x mpl .

61

Chapter 2:
Materials Needed

Materials Needed
•

For this high ly multisensory approach, there are n1any different
material n eded for e ch section of th 1 hour lesson.

•

Organization is k y to make this ppro ch manag

bl and efficient.

•

h 1 on.
A bind rand bin syst m can b h lpful for org ni zing
L b 1one bin for ch p rt of h I on xc pt for the phonogram
lesson (Focus work, Alph b t, P nm n hip, Vi ual Drill, Auditory Drill,
Sight Word)

67

•
•
•

Alphab tis the portion of the lesson wher stud nts I arn th s qu nc ofth
aiphab t.
Emphasis is put on I arning th s qu nc in alphab t am .
During this time, ft r tud nt hav rna t r d th alphab t, tud nts houid I o
be taught important s qu nc . For xampi , th day of th w k, months of th
year and season .
Alphabet teams

bcdefg
hi j kIm
nopqrst
uvwxyz
Materials

../ Alphabet letter manipulativ s. Put together 5 or 6 different ways tot ach
alphabet teams, dependant on the number of students in your group
../ Record page .
../ Pencil
Less on:

(1) Instructor will introduce alphabet team.
(2) Instructor will give the students their own set of manipulatives. Students will work
with their manipulatives to put alphabet team in order.
(3) Students will complete record page.

62

•

For the phonogr m section of th lesson, creat a bind r with plastic
inserts to pl c each part of that lesson.

• The next few pages will outlin wh t specific m terial you will need
for each part of the le son.

Focus Work
•

Focus work should be indep ndent pr ctice of skills to promote focus
and engagement at the beginning of th le son. Focus work can be
pen and paper tasks or working with manipulatives.

• The following are some ideas of what could b used for the focus
work section of the lesson;
-Dot to dot (Letters or numbers)
-Mazes
- Colour by letter
-Review work from previous lessons; alphabet teams, phonogram,
sight word, printing practice.

Alphabet
Alphabet teams can be taught in a variety of ways. The four teams are: a-g,
h-m, n-t, and u-z. Some ideas include;
•

Magnetic letters on a baking tray

• Alph b t t ams written on obj cts that c n b m nipul t d;
- Le o
- V lcr I tt rs
- Bingo chip

Alphabet Team manipulatives

63

Penmanship
• Model of each letter of th lphab t
• Manipulatives that th stud nts could use to ere te th lett r; wiki
sticks or play dough.
• Laminated sky, grass, ground mats
• White board erasers (you can use socks)
• Pencils
• Record page.

Visual Drill
• H
•

Tactile surface
- Tracing mat: Material that is soft or has a lot of texture can be
made into mat.
- Textured paper
- Ricejsand box. Put a bright colour of pap ron the bottom o the
students can see what th y hav ere ted.

an

64

Auditory Drill
•

Language K ys Drill Deck (LKDD deck)

•

Record page.
*The following sections are n ded on th record pag
- Known phonograms ( 0 to 15 lines)
-Words (5 to 10 words)
- A line for sentence

~-

Phonogr
•

Langu

•

Tactile

.
...

..

Phonogram Record Page

.".

.

"

"'

Ex. An
•

Blending mat- to practice the new sound by blending into words with
beginning and ending sounds .

•

Reading words- words that contain the new sound

•

Phonogram Record page

65

•

Tactile surface or Tracing mat

•

Red letter cards

•

Sight Word Record Page.

Chapter 3 :
Lesson Planning

66

Focus Work
Explanation:
•

In ability groupings, often students are coming from diff rent rooms for their
Orton-Gillingham session.

•

For a smooth transition it helps to have an activity on the table at their spot to
have them engage immediately.

•

This focus work is based on overlearning of recent concepts learned in previous
lessons.

Materials
The following are some ideas for focus work. The activities will be dependent on the
specific student.
../ Pictures to draw (3) objects
../ ABC colouring sections-this relates to the alphabet section of the lesson .
../ Felt board with velcro word attachments. Create words with previous learned
phonograms .
../ Dot to dot
../ Colour by numbers

Behavioural Expectation
•

Focus on task until the last person was seated and group is ready to start. The
task does not have to be completed.

67

Ex..., ................. ..., . .
•

Alphabet is the portion of the lesson where stud nts learn the sequence of the
a! phabet.

•

Emphasis is put on learning the sequ nee in a lph abet t ams.

•

During this time, after stud nts have mast red the alph abet, students should a lso
be taught important sequences. For example, th days of the week, months of the
year and seasons.
Alphabet teams
abcdefg
hi j kIm
nopqrst
uvwxyz

Materials
./ Alphabet letter manipulatives. Put together 5 or 6 different ways to teach
alphabet teams, dependant on the number of students in your group
./ Record page .
./ Pencil

Lesson:
(1) Instructor will introduce alphabet team.
(2) Instructor will give the students their own set of manipulatives. Students will work
with their manipulatives to put alphabet team in order.
(3) Students will comp lete record page.

68

isual Drill
Explanation:

•

Stud nt practic s the visual drill by recognizing nd v rbally saying 'known' or
learned phonograms.
Materials:
../ Language Keys Drill eck (LK
d ck)
../ Tactile surfac for tracing (Example, tr cing mat,
Lesson:

nd box, textur d paper)

(1) Students will sit aero s from instructor with th ir tactil surface in front of them .
(2) Instructor will show students one card at
loud.

time and student will say the sound out

*IF the student gets the sound incorrect
Corrective feedback: ~~Say the story 3x as you trace on your mat (model the story)"

> This card then goes back into the pile in order for the student to see it again and
try to say it appropriately.

Drill

69

Explanation :

•

During the auditory dri ll, tud nts ar pract1cm li t ning to 'known' or I arn d
sounds and writing them on r cord g . p ll ing is cal l d imultan ou ra J
p !ling (
).
• The phonograms and sp lling words chos n for this activity should com from
previous I sson .
Materials:
../ L arning K y Drill
../ Record pag
../ Pencil
Lesson:

ck (LK

(1) Instructor will hold th LKD

d ck)-for instru tor to r ad from

d ck say sound.

• Remind the students "Listen, repeat and sound as you spell".
• Students will say the sound and write it on their record page
(2) Instructor will read spelling words to th student.
•
•

Remind the students "Listen, repeat and sound as y ou spell".
Students will say the word and write the sound on their record page

•
'

Phonogram

70

•

During the Phonogram portion of the lesson, tud nts will! arn an w ound.

•

They already w nt through the di cov ry proc s of thi n w ound in th alphab t
portion of the les on.

Materials
../ LKDD deck card for n w phonogram
../ Different key word obj cts (For x mpl , toy appl for a ays fa/)
../ Tactile surface (For examp l , tr cing m t, and box or t xtur d pap r).
../ Reading words (co ntaining th n w phonogram)
../ A story to r ad
../ Record pag

Lesson
(1) Introduction to new phonogram
•

Instructors will s how students the card and key object for the new phonogram. Teach
story.
-Exa mpl e: a says fa/ for apple.

•

Students will trace the phonogram 3x on their tactile surface and say the story.

(2) Blending Mats
•

Students will practice blending their new phonogram with beginning and end sounds.

(3) Reading Cards
• Student(s) will read words off of cards. They can do this together or take turns.
• Place cards in the middle of the table for review.

(4) Phonogram Record Page
•

Students will practice the sound by writing it 3x on the record page

•

Instructor will give 5 to 10 spe lling words that the students will write down.

(5) Reading
• A story for the student to read

(6) Overlearning activity

•

Ex lanation

th e
ngagin g

71

A sight word, or red letter word , is a word that must be recognized as a whole by
naming the letters rather than being decoded.
Materials
•

../ Red letter cards
../ New sight word on a card
../ Sight word record page
Lesson
(1) Hand out sight word manipulatives

** Make enough sets ofmanipulatives so that each student can try something different.
• Students will discover the sight word by building it with different manipulatives
(2) Sight Word Record Page
• Students will complete a record page with their newly learned sight word

Sample Lesson Plan

72

• The following is a one page sequence of the lesson with the materials n eded
for each section. See Appendix C for a complete sampl lesson.

Time
5 Mins

Activity

M ateria ls Needed

Focus Work
/
/

5 Mins

Alphabet or Sequence
/

( 1) Introduce alphabet team .
(2) Work with manipulatives
(3) Complete record page.

10 Mins

/
/

( 1) Model printing
(2) Practice on tracing mats
(3) Written practice

/
/
/

/

( 1) Show LKDD deck
(2) Student says the sound

/

( 1) While holding the LKDD deck say sound.
(2) Read spelling words.

/
/

( 1) Introduction to new phonogram
(2) Blending Mats
(3) Reading Cards
(4) Phonogram Record Page
(5) Reading
(6) Overlearning activity

/
/
/
/
/

LKDD deck card for new phonogram
Different key word objects
Blending mat
Tactile surface
Record page
Reading words (containing the new
phonogram)

Sight word or Composition
/
/

( 1) Hand out sight word manipulatives
(2) Sight Word Record Page

2 Min s

Learning Key Drill Deck (LKDD deck)-for
instructor to use
Record page
Pencil

Phonogram lesson/New rule
/

5 Min s

Language Keys Drill Deck (LKDD deck)
Tactile surface for tracing

Auditory Drill
/

15 Min s

Model of proper formation of
letter/phonogram
Laminated sky, grass, ground mats
Wipe off markers and erasers (socks work
great!)
Penmanship booklets: sky, grass, ground
Pencil (golf pencils or smaller pencils
promote a proper grip)

Visual Drill
/

10 Mins

Alphabet letter manipulatives. 5 or 6
different activities
Record page.
Pencil/ eraser

Penmanship
/

10 Mins

Focus work activity
Pencil/ eraser

Overview of learned con ce pts

/

Red letter cards
New sight word on a c ard
Sight word re c ord page

73

5 Mins

5 Mins

Focus Work
-When students come into the room they will
sit down at their seat and complete a colour by
letters page.

./ Focus work activity
./ Pencil/eraser

Alphabet or Sequence
./ Alphabet letter manipulatives. 5 or 6

(1) Introduce alphabet team .
The "a" team (a, b, c,d, e, f, g)

different activities
./ Record page .
./ Pencil/eraser

(2) Work with manipulatives (Letter Tiles)
Students will work w1th letter tiles putt1ng 'a
team' together in the correct order.
(3) Complete record page .
Students will write the 'a team' rn the correct
order.
10 Mins

Penmanship (Letter h)
./ Model of proper formation of

(1) Model printing
Show student a model of the letter (h)
Teacher will model how the letter is formed on
a sky, grass, ground template.
(2) Practice on tracing mats
Students will trace 'h' 5x.

letter/phonogram
./ Laminated sky, grass, ground mats
./ Wipe off markers and erasers (socks

work great!)
./ Penmanship booklets : sky, grass, ground
./ Pencil (golf pencils or smaller pencils
promote a proper grip)

(3) Written practice
On the sky, grass, ground pract1ce page,
students will practice printing 'h'
10 Mins

Visual Drill
(1) Show LKDD deck of known sounds .
Known sounds: a, m, s, n, sn, sm, f, st, It, fl

./ Language Keys Drill Deck (LKDD deck)
./ Tactile surface for tracing

(2) Student says the sound . If student gets it
incorrect, trace 3x and say the so und . Th e card
goes ba ck into the deck.

-

t--

10 Min s

Auditory Drill

./ Learning Key Drill Deck (LKDD deck) -for

(1) Whil e holding th e LKDD dec k sa y each so und

instructor to use

74

for the student.

./ Record page
./ Pencil

(2} Read spelling words . Student will write down
spelling words and a sentence on record page
from "known sounds" (a, m, s, n, sm, sn, f, t, st,
It, fl}
Spelling Words (5 to 10 words): fat, man, snap,
sip, tan.
Sentence: The fat man liked to sip the pop.
15 Mins

Phonogram lesson
(1) Introduction to new phonogram
(h says /h/ for horse).
(2} Blending Mats
-Students will blend words with the beginning
sound 'h'
(3} Reading Cards
(4} Phonogram Record Page
-Students will complete the record page for 'h'.
- Practice printing h 3x
- Practice writing words that start with h.
-Spelling Words (5-10 spelling words}. ham,
hat, hop, him, he.

./ LKDD deck card for new phonogram
./ Different key word objects
./ Blending mat
./ Tactile surface

./ Record page
./ Reading words (containing the new

phonogram)

(5) Reading
- Students will practice reading words that start
with 'h'.
- Reading words
(6} Overlearning activity .
- Prepare a game that looks at the sound /h/
5 Mins

Sight word or Composition (sight word I}
(1) Hand out sight word manipulatives
(2) Sight Word Record Page

2 Mins

Overview of learned concepts

./ Red letter cards
./ New sight word on a card
./ Sight word record pa ge

75

App ndix A
G neral Orton-Gillingham qu nee v rv1 w
1 to 10

11 to 20

21 to 30

31 to 40

a-short vowel
m
s (sm, sn)

a-short vow I
c
r (fr, scr, cr, pr, tr,
spr,str)
d
u-short vowel
g-hard sound

e-short vow I

al l

n

f

i-short vowel
t (st, It, fl)
h
I (sl, It, fl)

w

J

k
X

'v'ck

z
y

'v'nk

th
qu

ch
sh
'v' ng
Old

p (sp, spl, pi, mp, pt)

syllable concept
v
b

Rule: Buzz off Mi ss
Pill
Basic punctuation
y /i/

41 to SO

51 to 60

61 to 70

71 to 80

V-Ce
Suffix concept
ar
oa
er
'v'tch
ay
common suffixes
1-1-1 Doubling rule
Open syllable

Possessives
v-e syllable
'v'ct
'v'dge
ee
final e rule
or
aw
ea

'c'le syllable
ur
Soft c concept

aI

Prefixes
Soft g concept
Vowel team
ou
ow

1r
R controlled
ow
ge final rule
Vee long vowel
ea
ew
wa
ey
oy

81 to 90

91 to 100

101 to 110

110 to 1 20

ou
ch
war
syllable div
u-e

ie
ph
igh
gu
ou

au

00

r 'v'

u

eigh, 1
err'v'

a!

fin al y rul
il nt I tt r

Ul

2- 1-1 doublin g rul

00
OJ

y
u

war
qua, alk, aim
ear
ch
qu _Igu
gu
our

sjzj
plurals (es, s)
wh

ou
ar'v'
qu a r
eJ

augh vs. ough
t

u

rar sp lling

76

Appendix B
Diagnostic for OG group participation:
•

The purpose of this diagnostic has a f w m in goals. It h Ips
determine how well the stud nt t kes instruction} information about
eye hand skills and ability to tr ck print. Most importantly} it
encourages the student to dev lop a r I tion hip with th instructor.

•

The exercise should be below the stud nt's frustration lev I and
informative. This is not

teaching time. It n

ds to be done one on

one with each individual student.
•

Assign a simple number system to get n idea of where they fit in the
group} such as} t understands} 2} needs help} 3} isn't meeting
expectations

INTRODUCTION :
Give a simple explanation of Multisensory learning. SEEING} HEARING}
FEELING.

ALPHABET:
Materials:
../ Manipulatives for the Days of the week/Months of the y ear
For example. Days of the week on pieces of paper that stud e nts ca n
velcro onto a piece of paper in the appropriate ord e r.

Questio ns: Can students sing the seque nce of the alphabet properly?
Can they put the alphabet in o rde r?
•
•

Stud nts will sing t h
Stud nt will put th

lphab t
Iph b tin ord r u 1ng m nipul tiv l tt r

77

SEQUENCING:
Materials:
./ Manipulatives for the D ys of th week/Months of th y r
For example. Days of the week on pieces of pap r that stud nts
velcro onto a piece of paper in th e appropri t or der.

can

Questions: Do students understand basic sequences such as the days of
the week or months of the year?
•

With manipulatives, stud e nts will put th e days of the w ee k/months of
the year in order.

PENMANSHIP:
Materials:
./ Paper
./ Pencil

On a piece of paper, ask students to print small letters of a lph a be t a nd
bas ed on how they do with this ask for ca pital s. Stop if th ey cann ot do
this.
VISUAL:
•

I Ma t eri a ls:
./ LKDD Deck C sound cards'')

•

Mix up sound c rds in th d eck (LKDD d ck) nd how t h m on by
on to th tud nt. Put th sounds th y know in llknown" pil nd
on
h y don ' in n ll unknown" pil

78

AUDITORY:
Materials:
../ Scope and Sequence (Appendix A)
../ Piece of paper
../ Pencil

•

From the scope and sequence (Appendix A) ~ say the sound to the
student. Student will write the sound down.

•

Start with Lessons 1 to 20. Depending on how th e student is doing/
discontinue as they begin to show frustration.

•

During this exercise the student can again put a line down if they
aren't sure of the correct answer.

SIGHT WORDS :

t aterials:
../ Dolch Sight words

•

Use th e Dolch sight words that are below th e exp ected level. The
Dolch sight words are in the following levels; pre- prim er/ primer/
grade t grade 2 and grade 3.
PHONETIC WORDS:
Materials:
../ 10 to 20 phonetic words on cards (depende nt on students ability
and level
• Students will show what reading skills th ey have by reading 10 to 20
phonetic words. This will show if they hav phon tic an d blending skill . By
now they have done quit a lot in the diagnostic. Also/ have a phrase and
s nt nc with pictur s of both.

79

COMPOSITION:
Materials
../ Interlined workbook
../ Pencil
../ Journal topic

•

Students will have a journal topic. They can either come up with this
on their own, or be given one. They will write 3 lines on their topic.
READING EXERCIS E:
*Levelled reading assessment.
Instructors can use what is available to them;
•
•
•

PM Benchmarks
Reading A to Z Assessment
DRA assessments

80

Conclu ion
The c ntral re earch que ti n of thi

tudy wa , " What do edu a tors look for when

choo ing a phonic -ba d lit racy interv ntion?'
three ource ; a teacher opinion qu

ata wa collected to illu trate this from

tionnaire a focu group and a po t-focu group.

The teacher opinion que tionnaire a ked a vatiety of que tion r garding educator's
opinions on u ing phonic as a reading in truction. Th r wa a high agreem nt between
pmiicipant that phonic

hould alway be a part of g neral reading in truction as well a a

part of retnedial reading intervention. The e result answer one of there earch que tion , that
there is indeed a need for a phonic -ba ed in truction or intervention program in early primary
years .
Another research question posed that was answered from the questi onnaire data wa
"how do educators choose a readin g intervention?'' To futiher thi s que tion there wa a query
about whether research-based appro ache were preferred , or if teachers counted on their
trusted colleagues to suggest an approach that they have found effective. Results howed that
teachers want both; a research-based program and one that co lleague have found uccess
with. Data showed that teachers pl aced importance on a variety of specifics when choo ing a
progrmn. The ix m ain characteristics were all ranked in1portant or very important by si out
of ten participants. These characteristi cs included ; clear layout, easy to u e in truction ,
engaging materials, pictures, blackline ma ters, and differentiated in truction. Although
participants str ngly upported program that were trongly based on re earch, they a! o
tru ted coll eagu s and used programs that had anecdotal evidcn

to back up it

ucce .

81

Evidence from there earch tudy conducted howed that there i a demand for a
phonic -ba ed program. The manual creat d tom et thi demand i an adaptation of the
Orton-Gillingham approach for a mall gr up

tting. In order to create an effectiv manual , a

focu group wa given th manual and a ked for their feedback. Th manual wa edited
according to the focu group feedback in order to make it an efficient and teacher friendly
re ource.

82

Chapter 5: Reflection
Wh n I tarted thi pr J ct, my goal wa to create a teacher f1iendly r ource from the
Orton- illingham methodol gy that wa adapt d for a mall gr up environn1 nt. Working a a
Re ource T acher for eight year I per iv d that there was ad 1nand for a

quentiaJ

phonic -ba ed program for tho e tudent with pecific Iean1ing di abiliti

who were not

responding to int rv ntion .

Iion- illingham i a multi

n ory, equential approach that i

often recommended to remediate reading for tudent with sp cific learning di abilitie . Thi
approach i comprehen ive but can be overwhelming and on rou to carry out. My hope wa
to create are ource for lean1ing a istance teacher that was easy to follow and explained how
to carry out thi approach within the tnall group environment. Typically, Orton-Gillinghmn i
taught in a one-to-one ession but I believe it can be very succe sful and reach 1nany children
who struggle when taught in a small group setting.
Throughout my educational community, I have heard the controver y over the use of
phonics to teach reading. Personally, I do believe in phonics instruction as both an early
reading strategy in p1imary grades as well as an intervention for struggling readers. However,
I wanted to understand how my colleague felt about thi issue and furthennore and how they
choose a phonics program to use in their classroom . Reading research studie is one
approach; I wanted to get to the bottom of this issue by finding out what my colleagu
thought.
After creating thi resource, l reali zed that it could al o be u d for newly-trained
tutors who are u ing th approach one-on-one.

!though thi i not the audience for whom the

manual wa intended , I n w can s e that it would be helpful for tutor who arc u ing the

83

approach a it wa created. U ing the Orton- illingham approach can be overwhelining in th
begim1ing to implem nt. Alth ugh th re are re ourc

that help tutor to carry out thi

approach, I believe that the manual that I cr at d could be an th r good option for tutor .
After going through the proce

of c nducting my focu gro up , I realiz d that

cla romn teachers may n t beth mo t appropriate audience for a manuallik thi one.
Participant from the focu group ugge ted that they cou ld ee thi program working with
one de ignated person who would carry out the approach, becau e the classroom teacher
would have difficulty carrying the program out consistently. Thi designated per on could be
an educational assistant or a learning a si tance teacher. However, by listening to the
conversation between participant , 1 began to ee how a pects of Otion-Gillingham can be
incorporated into the teacher exi ting practice. Teacher could use the Orton-G illingham
1nethodology and lesson plan in order to teach different le sons that they already carry out
such as penmanship, letter/sound recognition, and sight words. I can ee that teachers could do
this with every part of the Orton-G illinghmn lesson sequence if they were excited about the
approach.
This project did what it intended to do: find out educators opinions on phonics
instruction and how they choose phonics program . The data illu trat d that thi sample of
teachers wanted a reading approach that was both research-ba ed and had be n u ed by
colleagues. There was a high agreement of pmiicipants that phonics should be a part of both
typical classroom reading instruction and remedial reading. The data from the study impacted
the creati n of the manual by getting opinion on what teacher think are impotiant

84

charact ri tic . I £ 1 that th data from the que tionnaire a w 11 a the focu group help d
cr at a trong r manual.

Literacy i

o important for all tudent and more important£ r those with sp cific

reading di abiliti

. Th outcome f thi pr ject wa th cr ation of a manual that will help

educator with their important goal of teaching children how to read . M re p cifically, it will
give educat r a tool to u e with th
of reading challenge .

tud nt who need inten ive intervention for a variety

85

References
All n, H. (20 10).

nder tanding dy 1 xi a: Defining id ntifying and t aching. Illinois Reading

ouncil Journal, 38(2), 20-26
Carnbium Learning (2013a). R adWell re earch ba e K-3. Retrieved from
http ://www.voyagerlearning.com/doc /default- ource/researchlibrary/read-wellre earch-base.pdf?sfvr n=6.
Cambium Learning (2013b). Evidence of effectivene

with th e Read W ell curriculum.

Alabama chool ucce . Retrieved from
http://www.voyagerlearning.cmn/doc /default- ource/researchlibrary/evidence-ofeffectivene -with-read-well-in-alabama.pdf? fvrsn =6.
Cambium Learning (2013c). Results with the Read W ell curriculum: kindergarten and fir t
grade. Hunt vill e, Alabama. Retri eved from http ://www .voyagerlearning.cmn!docs
/default-source/re earchlibrary/read-well-succe -in-huntsville-al.pdf?sfvrsn=6.
Cambium Learning (2013d). Read Well results in a large Florida school di trict. Lee county
public schools. Retrieved from http ://www.voyagerlearning.com/docs/defaultsource/researchlibrary/read-well-success-in-lee-county-fl-2008-l O.pdf? fvrsn=6.
Cambium Learning (2013e). Evaluation of Read Well at the Tacoma public chools :
districtwide and longitudinal results. Tacoma public chool . Retrieved from
http ://www.voyagerlearning.com/docs/default-source/researchlibrary/evaluation-ofread -well-at -the-tacoma-public- choo ls-districtwide-and-longi tudinal results. df?sfvrsn=6.
ambium ean1ing (2013£). Kindergarten and first grade comparative evaluation with at-ri k
student population. Mi si ippi. Retrieved from http ://www.voyagerlean1ing.com

86

Founta ,

., & Pinn 11, G . (2012).

uided reading: The r mance and the reality. The

Reading Teacher, 66(4), 268-284. doi :10.1002/ RTR.01123 .
Gillingam A &

tilhnan B. (2002). Th e Gillingham manual: Remedial training for student

with pec~fic disability in reading, p elling and p enmanship (8 ed.) . ambridgem M :
111

Educator Publishing ervice .
International Dy lexia A ociation (IDA) . (2014). IDAfact sheet. Retrieved March 14t11 , 20 14
from www.interdy .org.

Lind ey L & Zyl tra,

. (2002) . tep into phonic : a tructured guide for equential phonic

based on the 01ion-Gillingham approach for multi ensory teaching. V ancouver, BC :
Learning Take Two .

Iaquinta, A. (2006) . Guided reading: A research-b ased re pon e to challenges of earl y
reading instruction. Early Childhood Education Journal, 33 (6), 413 -417 . doi:
10.1007/s 10643-006-0074-2

Inten1ational Dyslexia Association (IDA) . IDA fa ct sheet. Retri eved from www.interdys.org.
Kennedy, K. M. , & Backman, J. (1993). Effecti veness of the Lindamood Auditory
Discrimination in Depth program with stud ents with lean1ing disabilitie . Learning

Disabilities Research & Practice, 8, 253- 25 9.
Kouri , T ., Sell e,

., & Riley, . (2006) . omparison of meaning and gra phophonen1ic

feedback trategies for guided reading instruction of children with language delay .

87

American Journal of '/)eech-Language Pathology, 15 236-246. doi : 10580360/06/1503-02 6

Kok Hwee, N. , & Houghton

. (2011 ). The effectivene

of Orton- illinghatn-based

in truction with ingap r an children with pecific r ading disability. Briti h

Journal of Specia l Education, 38(3 ), 143 - 149. doi : 10.1111/j .1467-8578.2011
Lindamood ,

&Lindamood D (2011). The Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing Program.for
11

Reading, Spelling and Speech (LIPS) (4' ed.). Au tin , TX : Pro-ed.
Lindsey, L & Zyl tra, C. (2002) . Step into phonics: A tructured g uide for equential phonics

ba ed on the Orton-Gillingham approach for multisensory teaching. Vancouver, BC :
Leanling Takes Two .

Mcintyre, L., Protz, S. & McQuarrie, L. (2008). Exploring the potential of LiPS instruction
for begitming readers. Developm ental Disabilities Bulletin, 36(1 &2), 18-48.

Mesmer, H., & Griffith, P . (2005) . Everybody's selling it-but just what is explicit,
systen1atic phonics instruction? The Reading Teacher, 59(4), 366-376.
doi : 10.1598/RT .5 9.4.6

National Reading Panel. (1999). National reading panel progress rep01i. Retrieved from
www.NationalReadingPanel.org/documcnts

National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: an evidence-based as e ment of
the scientific research literature on reading and its implication for reading in truction.

88

Report of th

Ritch y, K ., &

ubgroup . R tri ved from

oeke, J. (2006).

rton- illinghmn and

rton- illingh am -ba ed reading

in truction : A r view of the literature. The Journa l of Sp eech Edu cation, 40(3), 17 1183 .

R o e, T. , & Zirkel, P . (2007) . Orton- ill ingh am m ethodology fo r tud ent w ith reading
disabiliti es: 30 years of ca e law. Th e Journal a_{ Sp ecial Education, 41(3), 17 1- 185 .

Sclunid , J. , Labulm, A . & H as elhorn, M . (20 11 ). R e ponse inh ibition and its relationship
to phonological processing in children w ith and witho ut dyslexia. In ternatio nal

Journal ofD isability, D evelopment and Edu cation, 58(1 ), 19-32.
Scheffel, D ., Sh aw , J ., & Shaw, R . (2008) . The efficacy of a supplem ental mul tisensory
reading program fo r first-grade students. Reading Improvement, 45(3 ), 139- 152.

Scholasti c (20 14). Research-b ased guid ed readin g as an instructional approach. Retrieved
from
http ://teacher. scholastic.cmn/products/guidedreading/pdfs/GR Research Paper 201 O.p
df

Torgesen, J. K ., Alexand er, A. W. , Wagner, R . K ., Ra hotte,

. A. , Voeller, K . K . ., &

onway, T . (200 1). Intensive remedial in truction for children with evere readin g
di ab il ities : Immediate and long-term utcome from tw instructional approache .

Journa l o.f Learning Disabilities, 34( I),

- 58 , 78 .

89

Winzer M. (2008).

hildr n with exceptionalities in

Toronto : ON: Prentice Hall.

anadian clas room (8111 ed).

90

APP NDIX A-T

H RP R

PTI N Q

TI NN IR

Teacher Perception Questionaire
1) Please indicate how many years of teaching experience you have.

•

•
•
•

•

0-5 years
6-10 years
11-15 years
15-20 years
20+ years

2) Please indicate if you have any specialties .

•
•
•
•
•

Learning Assistance
Special Needs/Support teacher
Music Teacher
Literacy
Behaviour Special ist

•
Other, pl ea e specify ...
3) A s an educator, what is your opinion of the follow ing statements abo ut what
cha racteri stics you look for in a reading intervention?
Strongly agree
An intervention that is
Strongly agree
researched-based
An intervention that
collegues have mentioned Strongly agree
was effective
An intervention that has a
phonetic and/or phonemic Strongly agree
awarness focus
Multisensory or hands on
Strongly agree
instruction
A reading intervention
based on a balanced
literacy approach
An intervention that

Agree

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree
trongly
Disagree

Agree

Disagree

Agree

Disagree

trongly
Di agree

Agree

Di agr e

trongly
Di agr

Agree

Di agree

trongly
Di sagree

Strongly agree AgTee

Di agree

trongl
Disagr e

trongly agr e

Di agr c

tro ngly

gre

91

trongly agree

gree

Di agree

trongly
Di agree

Di agree

contain material that
are engaging for tudent

4) Please rank specific characteristics that you look for in a manual according
to importance.

Very Important
Very Imp Iiant
Clear layout
Ea y to follow
Very Important
instructions
Blacklined rna ter of
ry Imp rtant
material included
Picture
Very Imp rtant
Very Imp rtant
E xample
Con ideration of different V
I
learning tyle
ery mp 1iant

Important

ot lmportan t

Imp rtant

t Important

Imp rtant

N t Importan t

Imp rtant

t Important

Important
Imp rtant

Not Important
Not Imp rtant

Important

t Important

5) Please respond to the following statement.

tron gly Agree
It is important that
areadin g intervention
program is is r e earch edbased and ha strong
tati tical evid ence to it
efficacy?

trongl y

Agr ee

Disagree

Di agree

gree Agree

tron gly
Disagr ee

trongly
Di agree

6) Please respond to the following statement.

Stron gly Agr ee
W hen choo ing a r eading
inter vention, I choo e
inter vention or strategies
that my collegue have
ugge ted or ha ve had
ucce with

trongly Agree

gr ee

gree

Di agr ee

Strongly
Di agree

Di agre

7) For each statement, please choose what accurately describes your opinion
on using phonics for a reading instruction in general.

92

trongly Agree
Phonics should only be
used as an intervention
for struggling readers
Phonic instruction
hould be given to all
children who are learning
to read
Phonic instruction
should never be used
when teaching reading

Di agree

Agree

Strongly
Disagree

Di agree

trongly
Di agr

trongl y Agree Agr e

Di agr

trongly
Disagree

trongly Agr e

Di agree

Strongly
Disagree

trongly Agr e

gre

gree

8) For each statement, please choose what accurately describes your opinions
about phonics instruction being used for remediate reading intervention.

Phonics should
always be a large
part of a
Strongly Agree
r emediate
reading
intervention
Phonics should
be a small part of
Strongly Agree
a remediate
reading
intervention
Phonics should
never be a part
Strongly Agree
of a remediate
reading
intervention

Disagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

Stron gly
Disagree

Agree

Disagree

trongl y Di agree

Agree

Disagree

trongl y Disagree

Agree

Disagree

trongl y Di agree

9) Please rank the following strategies for importance that you believe are
useful for struggling readers.
Decoding Strategies
ight Word Intervention
Guided Reading
Read Aloud
Reading omprehension

Very Important
Very Important
Very Important
Very Important
Very Imp rtant

lmpOiiant
Important
Important
Important
Important

Not Impotiant
Not Important
Not Important
Not lmpotiant
Not lmporiant

93

tratcgie
Phonemic warne
In truction
lndependant Reading
Time

ry Imp rtant

Imp rtant

t Imp rtant

ry Imp rtant

Imp rtant

t Imp rtant

10) Orton-Gillingham is a step by step , multisensory approach for teaching
phonetic and phonemic awareness to children who struggle with reading.
Please choose the option that describes your understanding of the approach
most accurately.

•
•
•
•

I am an Orton-Gillingham tutor
I have attended workshops that generally outline Orton-Gillingham
I know nothing about Orton-Gillingham
I know alot about the Orton-Gillingham Methodology and how instruction is
given according to this approach

11) Please respond to the following statement

An Orton-Gillingham
approach is an
appropriate intervention
to u e with struggling
reader .

trongl y

gree

tr ngly

gree Agree

gree

Di agree

Di agree

Strongly
Di agree
trongly
Di agree

If you answered 'strongly agree or agree' to the previous question, please
explain

Questionnai re Maker powered by FluidSurveys

94

APP NDIX B- FO U GRO P QU

TIO

1) Plea e tell me a few pecific thing that y u linked in the manual
2) Plea e tell me a few pecific thing that you would change

3) I there anything that you would add to th manual ?
4)

ould you incorporate a program like thi into your cla room practice?

5) Is there a need for a program like Orton-Gi llingham for truggling reader ? A D is there a
need for a 1nanual like thi ?
6) What audience do you think would be mo t appropriate for a manual like this? Learning
assistance teachers, 0-G tutors, etc?