If you’re looking into reading interventions, you’ve probably heard of the Orton-Gillingham (OG) approach. It’s widely used to help children with dyslexia and other reading challenges, but is Orton-Gillingham evidence-based? Let’s take a closer look at what the research says, what parts of OG are backed by science, and whether it’s the best option for struggling readers.
What is Orton-Gillingham?
The Orton-Gillingham approach was developed in the 1930s by neurologist Samuel Orton and educator Anna Gillingham. It’s designed to help individuals, particularly those with dyslexia, improve their reading, writing, and spelling skills. The method focuses on structured, sequential, and multisensory instruction to reinforce learning through different pathways—sight, sound, and touch.
How Orton-Gillingham Works: Core Principles of Orton-Gillingham
OG follows a specific teaching framework:
- Explicit Instruction: Concepts are directly taught instead of being inferred.
- Structured & Sequential: Lessons follow a logical order, starting with the simplest concepts and gradually increasing in complexity.
- Multisensory Learning: Students engage multiple senses by seeing letters, saying their sounds, and writing them.
- Diagnostic & Prescriptive: Teachers assess students’ progress and adjust lessons based on individual needs.
This approach has been widely adopted, but the big question remains—does research confirm its effectiveness?
Is Orton-Gillingham Considered Evidence-Based?
The term “evidence-based” means that a method has been rigorously tested in multiple scientific studies and has demonstrated significant effectiveness. While OG incorporates several strategies supported by research, it falls into a “research-based” category rather than being strongly evidence-based.
The Difference Between “Evidence-Based” and “Research-Based”
- Evidence-Based: Teaching methods that have been tested through controlled studies and proven effective.
- Research-Based: Methods that align with scientific research but may lack large-scale, high-quality studies proving their overall impact.
Many reading interventions today are built on research-supported strategies like explicit phonics instruction, systematic teaching, and progress monitoring—all of which OG includes. However, research evaluating OG as a whole program is limited and mixed.
What Does the Research Say?
Several studies have examined OG-based programs, but the results vary:
- Positive Findings
-
-
- Studies suggest OG can be beneficial for students with dyslexia and struggling readers, particularly in phonemic awareness and decoding skills.
- A 2010 review found that OG-based programs helped improve word recognition and spelling in students with reading disabilities (source).
- A 2018 study published in Annals of Dyslexia found OG methods improved phonological awareness in struggling readers (source).
-
- Limitations and Criticism
-
- Some research highlights inconsistent results when comparing OG to other structured literacy programs.
- A 2014 meta-analysis found that while OG-based instruction was effective, it was not significantly more effective than other structured phonics-based interventions (source).
- The multisensory component—a key feature of OG—lacks strong evidence showing it directly improves reading skills. Some studies suggest that explicit, structured phonics instruction is the real driver of success.
Key OG Components Supported by Research
Even though OG as a whole lacks extensive high-quality research, many of its core elements are well-supported by science:
- Explicit Phonics Instruction: Research overwhelmingly supports direct phonics instruction, especially for students with dyslexia. OG follows this model.
- Systematic and Sequential Approach: Studies show that teaching reading skills in a structured, cumulative way benefits struggling readers.
- Direct and Explicit Teaching: Research indicates that explicit instruction—where teachers clearly model skills before practice—helps students learn more effectively.
- Progress Monitoring: Regular assessment and adjustment of instruction improve reading outcomes, which OG incorporates.
Areas Where More Research Is Needed
While OG aligns with many best practices, some aspects need further study:
- Multisensory Learning: The idea that using sight, sound, and movement together improves reading skills lacks strong scientific backing. While engaging multiple senses can help some students, it’s unclear if it’s necessary for learning to read.
- Long-Term Effectiveness: More studies are needed to see how well OG-trained students retain skills over time.
- Comparison with Other Programs: OG isn’t the only structured literacy approach. Other phonics-based programs, such as Wilson Reading System, Lindamood-Bell®, and Seeing Stars®, also claim to be research-based. More direct comparisons are needed to determine which is most effective.
Is Orton-Gillingham the Best Option?
OG is a strong choice for students with dyslexia, but it’s not the only one. Other structured literacy programs also use explicit phonics instruction, sequential teaching, and diagnostic assessments, often with more research backing them.
Parents and educators should consider:
- What does the research say about this program?
- Does it include structured phonics instruction?
- Is it backed by data, or just popular?
- Does it work for this specific child?
If OG is available and works for your child, it’s a solid choice. But if other structured literacy programs have more research supporting their effectiveness, they might be worth considering, too.
Conclusion:
So, is Orton-Gillingham evidence-based? The answer is partial. While many of its core principles align with research-supported reading instruction, the approach as a whole program lacks large-scale, high-quality studies confirming its superiority. However, it remains a valuable tool—especially for students with dyslexia—because it incorporates strategies that are proven to work.
For parents and educators, the key takeaway is this: what matters most is structured, explicit phonics instruction, whether it comes from OG or another evidence-backed program. Always look for programs with strong research support and track progress to see what works best for the learner.