There were usually only 1 or 2 studies of most programs. We didn’t compare individual phonics programs with each other. In other words, those different approaches did about equally well. For instance, synthetic phonics (reading words from individual letters and sounds) resulted in higher average effects over analytic phonics (focused on syllables, morphemes, and use of known words as analogies), but this difference wasn’t statistically significant. What about different types of phonics teaching? We made some of those comparisons, too. Our conclusion was that phonics added a valuable ingredient to literacy teaching, and that programs that included explicit systematic phonics generally outperformed those that did not. If OG is the gold standard of decoding instruction, then it should reliably do better than other approaches to explicit decoding instruction.īack in National Reading Panel (NRP, 2000) days, we analyzed the effectiveness of phonics across 38 experimental and quasi-experimental studies (that looked at 18 different curricula). Basically, a gold standard approach would result, on average, in greater amounts of learning. This outperformance would be demonstrated by direct research comparisons, or by meta-analyses summarizing a bunch of disparate but relevant comparisons. To me the gold standard for an instructional program would be an approach that consistently results in positive learning outcomes and that outperforms competing methods. Let’s start with the claim that Orton-Gillingham (OG) and programs closely derived from it being the “gold standard.” However, I am willing to talk about research on programs or the consistency of certain parts of a program with research. You are correct that I usually don’t comment on specific programs. Is there research to support this? Are these studies comparing programs based on OG (that mainly follow a more print to speech approach) and programs that are more specifically speech to print? Thank you! Proponents of speech to print methods claim it is much faster to teach kids to read (and spell) than OG based approaches. More recently, I began reading about programs labeled as speech to print. I always thought Wilson, and specifically OG approaches, were the gold standards. I had always wanted more training in a structured literacy program/approach. I know you typically don’t talk about specific programs, but I really would like to know your thoughts.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |