by Marnie Ginsberg
This article updates the definition of dyslexia and shows how the process of dyslexia identification is being adapted. In addition, we review how the features of quality instruction are changing as new research comes to light. Finally, we will present the evidence for why schools might choose Reading Simplified for dyslexic students, as an efficient, evidence-based option.
A Contemporary Instructional Approach for Dyslexic Students
Dyslexic students often spend years struggling with reading, but what if there was a faster, more effective solution? Reading Simplified offers an innovative approach that challenges conventional methods and delivers results in less time. Although Reading Simplified and other speech-to-print (or Structured Linguistic Literacy) methods are less familiar to many educators and parents, they offer an effective alternative to the more widely known Orton-Gillingham-based approaches.
In this article, we first update the public about treatment of dyslexia as the landscape is shifting to more evidence-aligned instruction in states and schools and then confirm that these approaches, and Reading Simplified in particular, are suitable instructional methods for working with dyslexic students.
Please refer to the efficacy document below that elaborates on the studies and research proceeding the development of Reading Simplified as you consider the information presented in this article.
What is Dyslexia? Dyslexia is a learning disability that affects reading and spelling. It's neurobiological in origin, meaning it mostly stems from brain/learning differences rather than environmental factors. Dyslexia often comes as a surprise, especially because it occurs in individuals who have typical or even strong cognitive abilities in other areas. Key features include difficulty with word recognition, spelling, decoding, and fluency.
Various organizations, research groups, and educational bodies have proposed different definitions of dyslexia. Below are some of the most widely recognized:
“Dyslexia is an alternative term used to refer to a pattern of learning difficulties characterized by problems with accurate or fluent word recognition, poor decoding, and poor spelling abilities.”
Dr. Steven Dykstra
“Dyslexia is a specific learning disability that is neurobiological in origin. It is characterized by difficulties with accurate and/or fluent word recognition and by poor spelling and decoding abilities. These difficulties typically result from a deficit in the phonological component of language that is often unexpected in relation to other cognitive abilities and the provision of effective classroom instruction. Secondary consequences may include problems in reading comprehension and reduced reading experience that can impede growth of vocabulary and background knowledge.”
International Dyslexia Association
“A brain-based learning disability that specifically impairs a person's ability to read.”
National Center for Improving Literacy
“Dyslexia is a specific learning disability characterized by difficulties with accurate or fluent word recognition and spelling (Fletcher et al., 2019). When operationalized as word reading accuracy more than 1.5 standard deviations below the mean, estimates of dyslexia's prevalence in the population are roughly 7% (Peterson & Pennington, 2012). Research in cognitive neuroscience, genetics, developmental psychology, and education has demonstrated that dyslexia is neurobiological in origin and heavily determined by genes, while also influenced by environmental factors (Fletcher et al., 2019; Grigorenko et al., 2020). Individuals with dyslexia are at greater risk for negative academic and occupational outcomes (Boscardin et al., 2008; Daniel et al., 2006; Hernandez, 2011). That said, early identification and remediation has been found to increase both the academic and emotional well-being of individuals with or at risk for developmental dyslexia, even demonstrating efficacy in preventing the incidence of reading difficulties (RDs) altogether (e.g., Al Otaiba et al., 2009; Mathes et al., 2005).”
Hall and colleagues.
Although definitions vary slightly, they all agree on the key aspects: dyslexia affects a person’s ability to process written words, and this difficulty is not tied to their intelligence or other cognitive skills.
The question of whether or not to update the definition of dyslexia has been an ongoing debate among experts in the field and is getting recent attention.
While current definitions are useful, some suggest they could be refined to better support identification and intervention.
Although this topic is beyond our current focus, it's important to recognize the ongoing discussions and the insights from researchers to gain a clearer understanding of different perspectives. See the following comments from leading researchers:
First, in an advanced online copy of Annals of Dyslexia, Catts and colleagues (2023) revisited the definition of dyslexia outlined in 2002 by the International Dyslexia Association, noting what should be retained and what should be shed:
“Although the current IDA definition of dyslexia has provided a useful basis for identification, service provision, and research, accumulating evidence over the ensuing 20 years suggests ways that the definition can be refined to extend its utility into the future. As we outlined above, core aspects of the definition, including reference to a specific learning disability, neurobiological basis, the primacy of word reading, decoding, and spelling difficulties, limitations in phonological processing, and secondary consequences should be retained. Other aspects of the definition should be refined, including reference to exclusionary criteria. Specifically, it should be made clear that limitations in word reading, decoding, and spelling, and not phonological processing, are unexpected when effective classroom instruction is provided” (p. 14).
Second, consider Schatshneider and Hart's critique the concept of “unexpectedness” in their study of 27,000 students (2024). They wrote:
“[I]t is clear that the different operational definitions of reading disability will differentially impact which students get identified as having a reading disability and this differential impact varies by the race and ethnicity of the student. This will always occur when groups being identified differ in their average performance on the benchmark by which unexpectedness is measured.” (p. 17).
Third, Snowling and Hulme (2024) respond to Catts et al., and others in the same journal and overall view the UK Rose Review definition as sufficient:
“In our view, the broad form of a definition of dyslexia is clear and needs little by way of revision. We believe the core of the definition proposed by the UK Rose Review remains useful and accurate (Rose, 2009). 'Dyslexia is a learning difficulty that primarily affects the skills involved in accurate and fluent word reading and spelling. Characteristic features of dyslexia are difficulties in phonological awareness, verbal memory and verbal processing speed. Dyslexia occurs across the range of intellectual abilities. It is best thought of as a continuum, not a distinct category, and there are no clear cut-off points'. The key points here are: 1. Dyslexia is a difficulty in learning to decode/encode print. 2. It is associated with phonological problems. 3. It may occur at different levels of ability. 4. Dyslexia is a dimensional disorder—where we set a cut-off for identification that is to some extent arbitrary" (p. 1-2).
Then, Snowling and Hulme in the same article conclude:
“We favour using measures of behaviour (reading and spelling skills) as the primary means of diagnosing dyslexia. Although there is a degree of arbitrariness in where the “cut-off” for dyslexia is placed, we do believe that the use of dyslexia as a categorical label is useful both in educational practice and research. The dimensional view clearly entails, however, that such a category may be modified by adjectives—a person might be described as mildly or severely dyslexic depending on their level of literacy needs. It is important in relation to educational policy that it is recognized that reading difficulties are both common and remediable and that suitable interventions are made widely available. Dyslexia is persistent although its effects will differ according to context and the individual differences in related skills that the child brings to the task of learning…Moreover, there is a good understanding of some of the causal risk factors associated with dyslexia and a significant evidence base of effective interventions for reading and language difficulties. The issues involved in scaling up methods of screening and identification and, following these, providing evidence-based interventions need to be at the forefront of policy and practice (Newbury et al., 2022)” (p. 360).
Fourth, Wolf and colleagues (2023) recently proposed seven principles for a more comprehensive conceptualization of dyslexia, stating:
“By looking at both history and the reading brain circuitry together, there are several principles that we believe are key for a new conceptualization and eventual definition of dyslexia. First, there will be different manifestations of dyslexia depending on what is most vulnerable in the circuit for a given language. Although the natural desire in science for parsimony has made the more unitary hypotheses of dyslexia dominate its history, the cumulative history of dyslexia and the reading brain itself reveal that there will be no single form of dyslexia, an understanding further confirmed by cross-linguistic and cross-writing system studies. There will be different profiles of characteristics among children with dys- lexia across languages with weaknesses in phoneme awareness, the processes underlying RAN, and potentially other language, visual, and executive functions presenting in different combinations, depending on the writing system (Daniels & Share, 2018; Share, 2021).”
Finally, the International Dyslexia Association (IDA) announced in August of 2024 the launch of an initiative to revisit and potentially revise its definition of dyslexia. The original definition, developed by IDA, has been widely accepted for years, but with advances in neuroscience and education, it’s time for a review to ensure the definition remains relevant. Dr. Malatesha Joshi, Co-Chair of the Dyslexia Definition Steering Committee, emphasized,
The intent is to make the definition clear, inclusive, and actionable for both individuals with dyslexia and educators. A diverse group of experts, the Dyslexia Definition Steering Committee, will guide the process. This committee will gather data, review current evidence, and draft updated versions of the definition.
As you can see, much ink has been spilled on the definition of dyslexia by leading researchers and leaders. Through it all, one can still see the clear thread of difficulty with written language that can emerge from a variety of factors.
Effective dyslexia treatments, early assessment, and tailored instruction can prevent reading difficulties. Enhanced core instruction and systematic interventions can significantly improve reading skills for dyslexic students.
Dyslexia is the most severe form of word-level reading difficulties. Word-level reading difficulties, regardless of their severity, are best treated as a part of a system.
“For many children incipient reading difficulties can be prevented, or nipped in the bud, by thorough, early assessments of their performance, the information from which is then used to adjust and tailor work more closely to their needs. These adjustments can often be made effectively so that the children continue to be taught in their regular settings and classes. Where this is not in their best interests, however, the arrangements for intervention advocated by the Primary National Strategy remain sound advice. That is to say, work should be adapted within the classroom, further support in small groups should be provided for those who need it, and individual programmes should be provided for those with the greatest need, some of whom will have special educational needs” (Rose Report, 2006, p. 41).
“There is no doubt that some children have reading disabilities, but the key to improved outcomes for the vast majority of struggling readers, including those with a reading disability, is enhanced core instruction—and that means enhanced curricula, assessments, pre-service and in-service professional development, and supports.”
“Because so few teacher preparation programs, school districts, and commercially available programs have implemented consistently what we have learned from the science of reading, far too many students struggle—feeling like they are reading failures, not realizing that they were never provided the explicit instruction they need to succeed.* The vast majority of students with low reading achievement have preventable problems: with explicit, evidence-based instruction, they would learn to read.”
*To learn more about how preparation programs, professional development, and other key supports could be improved, see “Teaching Reading Is Rocket Science” in the Summer 2020 issue of American Educator.
“Students with reading disabilities have great difficulty acquiring foundational, word-level reading skills; they do not decode words accurately or fluently, and often they have poor spelling. Except for assessing to determine children’s responses to instruction, there are no effective methods for differentiating subgroups of children with word-level problems. Students with reading disabilities (dyslexia) are real and represent the largest group of children in special education, even though in many cases stronger instruction in the earlier grades may have prevented the special education referral; they also comprise a large portion of the general education population that does not read well but has not been identified for special education.”
Focusing on results, preventing reading disability, and considering all children as general education children first are all important to the system.
With models such as what Vaughn and Fletcher suggest in place, the question then becomes…
As disputes about the specifics of diagnosing the dyslexic learner continue, Dr. Jack Fletcher brings an easy-to-grasp, shorthand to the question: “Who is dyslexic?” The system the child is in, heritable factors, and the instruction a child has already been exposed to matter in determining the answer.
See the slide from Dr. Fletcher's presentation for the Ohio Department of Education below for his answer to the question, “Who is dyslexic?”
Let’s take all of the information about what we understand about dyslexia, current conversations, treatment for dyslexia, and who is dyslexic from the above sections and boil it down for now.
Dyslexia is certainly complex. But for this review, and for practitioners interacting with students on a daily basis in schools, what should we focus on?
What guideposts can we use for understanding dyslexia day to day?
Well, it can be simplified to four points,
In light of these factors that affect classroom teachers daily, this lens means classroom teachers need solutions just as much as interventionists or caregivers for instructing students and knowing how to intensify instruction.
What is quality instruction for dyslexic students? Quality instruction involves evidence-based teaching of foundational reading skills–focusing on phonemic awareness, phonics, and fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. The key is to provide intensive, systematic, and explicit instruction in the area(s) of most pressing need.
It’s important to understand that dyslexia isn’t an isolated issue but rather a system-wide challenge. The success of dyslexic learners is deeply tied to the overall quality of instruction provided throughout the educational system.
As Vaughn and Fletcher point out, “quality instruction” means,
It depends.
If the child is part of a system where reading achievement is high and where 80-90% of students are achieving grade-level proficiency, maybe not.
However, if students receive foundational skills instruction that relies on the unsupported 3-cueing system and doesn't focus on building specific foundational skills—such as directing students’ attention to individual sounds and spellings in words—then yes, these students need something different.
While many think of the 3-cueing system as detrimental to decoding and somewhat disorganized, the systems aligned with it also fail to support reading comprehension beyond the word level as well.
Dr. Tanji Reed Marshall summarizes this well:
“Reading is about more than putting letters together. As Mark S. Seidenberg writes in ‘The Science of Reading and Its Educational Implications,' reading is a systematic process that allows a child to derive meaning from text based on their ability to simultaneously connect letters to sounds to ‘call' words from a page and understand them.
Research has shown that only a small percentage of students can effectively use less-structured approaches like the ‘three cueing' system. This method encourages students to rely on pictures, contextual clues, and background knowledge to make guesses about unfamiliar words.
However, such reliance leads to inequitable learning opportunities because students come to school with varying levels of background knowledge. Assuming that all students can use context and prior knowledge to decipher unknown words assumes uniformity in their experiences and interpretation. This uniformity simply doesn’t exist.”
Suppose the school system at the school level aims to align its instruction with evidence. In that case, students likely do not need a different form of instruction as long as there are:
This kind of professional development not only strengthens the core instructional practices but also helps to phase out ineffective or unproven methods. With the right support, teachers can focus on implementing evidence-aligned strategies, ensuring every student receives the instruction they need to succeed.
Furthermore, as schools work to align their instruction with evidence-based practices, it's essential to consider the level of instructional intensity required to meet students' diverse needs. Effective teaching is not only about adopting the right methods but also about adjusting the intensity of support provided.
Considerations of instructional intensity include:
By increasing instructional intensity and focusing on evidence-aligned practices, educators can better meet the varied needs of their students. But as Dr. Sharon Vaughn emphasizes, there's no single path to success. In a recent presentation that Dr. Vaughn delivered for Core Learning, she reminds practitioners that there are many effective ways to teach students to read, despite the common misconception that “There is ONE way to effectively teach reading.”
Instead, she shares that “There are many effective ways to teach students to read” including aspects of an “organized approach” around the “alphabetic principle, reading words [phonemic awareness and phonics] learning word meanings [vocabulary], and accessing complex texts [equitable ELA instruction for comprehension].” “Differentiating instruction” is also an important principle.
Building on the understanding that there are many effective approaches to reading instruction, it's important to consider what specific interventions work best for students with dyslexia. Research consistently shows that effective instruction for dyslexic students often requires a combination of targeted foundational skills and comprehension strategies.
Hall and colleagues, in “Forty Years of Reading Intervention Research for Elementary Students with or at Risk for Dyslexia: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis“ share that systematic reviews of interventions for the most significant reading disabilities suggest that,
“…multicomponent reading interventions that provide explicit, systematic instruction in foundational skills (going forward, we use the term foundational skills to refer to phonological awareness [PA], phonics knowledge, word reading, spelling, and connected-text reading) and simultaneously focus on meaning (i.e., both word meanings and comprehension of connected text) are associated with significant positive effects” (p. 1).
The authors discuss their findings:
While effective interventions can significantly support dyslexic students, it is also essential to understand some key realities about dyslexia itself. These realities help frame the broader conversation about prevention, identification, and intervention.
Key Realities of Dyslexia
Understanding these key realities of dyslexia is essential, but experts emphasize that we already possess the knowledge needed to effectively address the condition. According to Hall and colleagues (2022), several additional realities about dyslexia further guide our approach, showing that interventions can benefit a broader range of students, not just those with severe reading difficulties:
“…while students with dyslexia represent the lower end of a distribution of code-based reading skills, the distribution is a continuous one. Students above our norm-referenced threshold (i.e., students among those identified as students with RDs broadly defined in previous systematic reviews) may also struggle with word reading, spelling, and skills foundational to word reading and spelling, if to a slightly lesser degree.”
“It makes sense that they also benefit from interventions that address those areas of weakness. Benchmarking, progress monitoring in formal and informal ways can help determine what students know and what they still need instruction on to accelerate reading progress.”
“The similarity of our findings to those reported previously is also a reminder that students with dyslexia frequently experience difficulties with language comprehension (Adlof & Hogan, 2018; Pennington et al., 2012; Snowling & Hulme, 2021), whether because language comprehension difficulties emerge as a secondary consequence of word RDs (Stanovich, 2009), are a different manifestation of the same underlying cognitive difficulty that causes dyslexia (Tallal et al., 1997), or are distinct but commonly comorbid difficulties (Catts et al., 2005). The truth is, most students with RDs experience both code- and language-based difficulties.”
(Curious about this meta-analysis? Hear from the authors.)
There’s been increased attention on this third reality about language comprehension for good reason. In practice, we see that when students with dyslexia receive early and frequent support for their word-reading difficulties, the outcomes improve significantly.
Even though these students may continue to face challenges with processing speed or word retrieval (finding the precise vocabulary), early intervention often leads to word reading success and allows them to take advantage of the language comprehension skills they have and become more strategic with grade level texts and tasks. [Dig deeper with experts in this Reading Comprehension Round Table.]
The key is having a systematic approach to language comprehension with text at the center in place during their school years, and incorporated into core instruction.
Additionally, students benefit greatly when they are encouraged to read and write frequently.
On a 2023 episode of the Reading Road Trip podcast, expert Jack Fletcher summarizes what we know about instruction for children with dyslexia…
[T]he thing that I would emphasize is that there's no such thing as a dyslexia-specific program. There are lots of ways to skin this cat. And the key is to get the child into a program that is appropriately intensive.
Dr. Jack Fletcher, Reading Road Trip podcast Tweet
“…the thing that I would emphasize is that there's no such thing as a dyslexia-specific program. There are lots of ways to skin this cat. And the key is to get the child into a program that is appropriately intensive.
The amount of time you spend in intervention is probably the best predictor of intervention response provided intervention is appropriate.
And then there are three criteria for appropriate intervention. One is, well obviously, it needs to be comprehensive. For a child with dyslexia, it absolutely needs to have an explicit phonics component. And it needs to systematically teach the child the relation between what words look like and what words sound like.
But the program also has to be comprehensive. The best interventions are programs that integrate decoding and instruction in the alphabetic principle with an emphasis on automaticity through cumulative practice getting kids to read books and text at their instructional level and then also incorporating comprehension lessons.
In kids with dyslexia, if you don't make all three components explicit, lay them out for the child, and give them to the child in an organized fashion, the intervention will not be as effective.
And then it needs to be differentiated. It needs to take into account the child’s pattern of reading, writing strengths, and weaknesses, and then individualize according to that. Now I’m not talking about providing kids with one-on-one instruction because the number of kids that have dyslexia is too large to just do one-on-one with all kids. There's not actually any evidence that one-on-one instruction is more effective than small group instruction – say three or four kids. But you have to be able to create homogeneous groupings of kids. The best indicators are basically the child’s reading fluency rate. You can predict the type of instruction that a child needs based on how fluently they can read words and text.”
This is such a powerful, succinct summary of how to serve students with dyslexia from one of the best researchers in the field!
To build on these expert insights, it’s clear that effective intervention must be efficient, comprehensive, structured, and tailored to individual needs. This is where Reading Simplified comes in.
Why Reading Simplified?
Reading Simplified provides an explicit, systematic approach to foundational reading instruction, designed to fast-track students’ reading success. Unlike many traditional methods, it’s streamlined for efficiency, ensuring both teachers and students spend less time on ineffective practices. Reading Simplified embodies quality instruction, incorporating the key features needed for effective intervention with dyslexic students. Reading Simplified can be delivered with the intensity and depth necessary for effective intervention, while still providing the flexibility to differentiate instruction for individual learners.
Reading Simplified’s core focus is on explicit, systematic, cumulative, and diagnostic instruction in foundational reading skills, delivered through a clear and organized system. This structured approach ensures that every student builds essential skills step-by-step.
A standout feature of Reading Simplified is its ability to rapidly develop sound-based decoding skills. Through highly efficient activities like Switch It and Read It, students quickly learn to connect sounds to letters and manipulate phonemes, which accelerates their ability to decode words. This approach is particularly powerful because it targets the root of reading difficulties—students’ struggles to process sounds—allowing even the most struggling readers to make significant gains in a short time. During Word Work activities such as this, we first analyze phoneme-graphing relationships and segment and blend words students already have in their oral vocabulary.
By focusing on phonemic processing and the relationship between sounds and spellings, Reading Simplified ensures that students master the core components of decoding early on. This rapid progress not only boosts students’ confidence but also lays a strong foundation for further reading growth. With this approach, students aren’t just recognizing words—they are learning how to break words apart and put them back together, a critical skill for long-term reading success.
In addition to teaching foundational skills, Reading Simplified integrates language support at every step along the way. During Word Work, as we analyze phoneme-grapheme relationships, we also help students segment and blend words they already know from their oral vocabulary. If a student encounters unfamiliar words—often the case with English learners—our materials provide brief, student-friendly definitions to bridge the gap. We also recommend utilizing an online picture dictionary for quick demonstrations of unknown words. Teachers may also enhance instruction by asking students if a similar sound exists in their home language and discuss briefly.
After every connected text reading, or the lesson component we call Guided Oral Reading, we encourage students to summarize what they’ve read. While both vocabulary support and summarizing routines don’t fully establish all students' need for language enhancement, it is a helpful base, given the main needs of a foundational skills lesson. Advanced coursework inside the Reading Simplified Academy includes additional direction for building vocabulary and comprehension through read-aloud and additional vocabulary insights influenced by the work of Dr. Freddy Hiebert. Rather than supplying a full program for English and Language Arts, Reading Simplified enhances what teachers are already working with, offering real-time coaching and proven strategies through our embedded platform to elevate classroom instruction.
Very important to the comprehensiveness of the Reading Simplified system is the fact that we get students into real texts very quickly. This means a lot of practice and time spent reading!
The system involves assessment, diagnostic thinking, multicomponent foundational skills instruction, and the integrated teaching of foundational skills with simple routines for practice and connected text reading that can be incorporated by classroom teachers while enrolled in our professional development course.
In sum, Reading Simplified should be considered as part of a solution for educators to enhance core instruction, supplement whole group foundational skills instruction in small groups, or alter instruction based on student needs for intervention, even for those with significant word-level reading difficulties.
Generally, students with characteristics of dyslexia or diagnosed with dyslexia are encouraged to:
“seek out reading instruction that is based upon a systematic and explicit understanding of language structure, including phonics” (IDA’s Dyslexia at a Glance).
The International Dyslexia Association has enveloped these instructional approaches/programs under the banner of Structured Literacy and explains what they all have in common here.
Reading Simplified has the markings of effective reading instruction and therefore falls under this banner.
However, Reading Simplified and other Structured Linguistic Literacy Approaches (SLL) look different than the more well-known Orton-Gillingham approaches. And often when states provide guidance for Structured Literacy, their lessons look different than Reading Simplified. (See examples from states’ dyslexia interventions and guidance lessons on pg. 30.)
So as a newer and innovative method, Reading Simplified may not have been on your radar as a solution for students with dyslexia.
Miriam Fein does a beautiful job of laying out the differences between the more well-known approaches vs. approaches like Reading Simplified in her 2023 article for The Educational Therapist.
At Reading Simplified, we would argue, that our approach combats some of the questions surrounding the lack of efficiency and evidence of more well-known approaches.
Ritchey and Goeke reviewed the available evidence for Orton-Gillingham based approaches in 2006 and concluded:
Given the small number of studies, the lack of methodological rigor of the existing studies, and the inconclusive findings of the effectiveness of OG programs, additional research is needed before the scientific basis can be established.
Ritchey and Goeke, 2006 Tweet
Then in 2021, Stevens and colleagues conducted a meta-analysis titled, “Current State of the Evidence: Examining the Effects of Orton-Gillingham Reading Interventions for Students With or at Risk for Word-Level Reading Disabilities – PMC” and concluded that:
Despite the continued widespread acceptance, use, and support for OG instruction, there is little evidence to date that these interventions significantly improve reading outcomes for students with or at risk for WLRD [word level reading difficulties] over and above comparison group instruction.
Stevens et al., 2001 Tweet
So while state guidance continues to promote and reference routines that look more like OG and less like Reading Simplified, Stevens and colleagues’ suggest, “The findings from this meta-analysis raise concerns about legislation mandating OG.”
In a more recent article by Austin and colleagues published in The Reading League Journal entitled “Orton-Gillingham: Which Aspects are Supported by Research and Which Require Additional Research?” the authors analyzed each component of the Orton-Gillingham-based program for its efficacy and concluded:
“There is a strong evidence base for several important aspects of the OG approach, including direct and explicit instruction with scaffolding, structured and sequential instruction, and diagnostic and prescriptive instruction. However, less evidence supports spending instructional time implementing the multisensory aspects of the program, and further research is needed comparing the use of syllable types and syllable division rules to more flexible approaches for breaking apart and reading multisyllabic words.” [Bolding is ours.]
In 2023 more information on multisensory instruction was contributed to the field by Clemens and Vaughn in a piece entitled, “Understandings and Misunderstandings About Dyslexia: Introduction to the Special Issue.” The authors point out:
“Multisensory instruction is not the only approach to teaching students with dyslexia. Multisensory instruction is most often associated with the Orton-Gillingham approach to intervention (OG; Gillingham & Stillman, 1960, 1997), which routinely involves teaching using the engagement of students' visual, auditory, tactile, and kinesthetic responses. There are several elements to the OG approach, including explicit and systematic phonics instruction; however, the multisensory emphasis is a feature that distinguishes it from other programs. OG has historically been viewed as a preferred intervention for dyslexia, as it has been commonly recommended by advocates, appeared prominently in case law, and is used in many specialized schools for dyslexia (Bhat et al., 2000; Rose & Zirkel, 2007). However, systematic reviews have indicated no statistically significant advantage of multisensory instruction compared with other approaches or that it is necessary for intervention for dyslexia (Ritchey & Goeke, 2006; Stevens et al., 2021). In their meta-analysis in this special issue, Hall and colleagues observed that programs categorized as multisensory were not more effective than other programs. We recognize that some multisensory programs, as well as other intensive interventions, have been beneficial to some students with dyslexia. There are many systematic approaches to improving reading outcomes for students with dyslexia, but the most common characteristic of effective programs is the use of explicit instruction in phonics (Al Otaiba et al., this issue; Shanahan, this issue). Research also indicates benefits for integrating spelling instruction within reading instruction (Graham & Santangelo, 2014). The benefits of spelling instruction are likely due to the interdependent relationship and common foundation of spelling and word reading (Ehri, 2000).”
More research would be helpful, but based on the analyses of:
this might lead us to expect more efficient and effective results from other methods. So we should be curious about the lesser-known approaches that are evidence-based interventions designed for efficiency and flexibility.
This evolving understanding opens the door for considering alternative, evidence-based methods that offer flexibility and efficiency, such as Reading Simplified. Thus, we should no longer speak about Orton-Gillingham as the “gold standard” intervention for dyslexic students.
General education teachers, interventionists, tutors, caregivers, special education teachers, and volunteers can and, most importantly, do teach children with dyslexia. And with evidence-aligned instruction, they can – expertly.
We’ve covered the elements of effective, quality instruction above. Clemens and Vaughn (2023) had this to say to clarify understandings and misunderstands about dyslexia in their final points,
“Certified language therapists” or other specially credentialed teachers are not the only individuals capable of providing effective reading interventions for students with dyslexia. At present, there are no laws in the United States that require dyslexia-specific credentials or certifications to provide intervention to students with dyslexia. With access to evidence-based practices and programs, educators with all levels of training are prepared to meet the needs of students with dyslexia. For example, a meta-analysis by Jones et al. (2021) observed that paraprofessionals can provide reading interventions that result in meaningful improvements for students with reading difficulties.”
AND
“Classroom teachers can do much to remedy dyslexia. Classroom teachers may be the most important and valuable resource for students with dyslexia (see Shanahan, this issue). Classroom teachers are often their primary reading teachers as well as the educators who have the most influence on their self-worth. Classroom teachers can be a tremendous source of social–emotional and educational support for students with dyslexia. Armed with the knowledge and skills of effective reading instruction, classroom teachers can alter the learning and life trajectories of students with dyslexia.”
As preservice training programs and school systems increasingly align with the extensive evidence around reading and writing, overall student outcomes will improve. We’re not there yet, but efficiency for teachers and students is an important aspect to consider as we build systems to scale.
This shift makes it more challenging to argue that dyslexic students require different instruction or teachers with specialized credentials. While dyslexic students may need more time, exposure, and intense instruction, the concept that dyslexia is best addressed through a system of evidence-based support means we must trust a growing number of teachers to effectively work with dyslexic students in developing their reading and writing skills.
Based on the evolving insights of reading research and dyslexia research, Reading Simplified emerges as a strong instructional approach for supporting dyslexic students.
Here’s why….
Reading Simplified members who have completed The Reading Simplified Academy can comprehensively build foundational skills, in concert with the alphabetic principle, text reading, and attention to word meaning to work with students at risk of or with dyslexia.
Teachers trained in the Reading Simplified system possess the tools to effectively intensify interventions diagnostically, addressing the individual needs of students.
As an added benefit,
These trained teachers receive continuous coaching to tackle challenges related to their unique, local needs.
Drs. Molly Farry-Thorn and Mark Seidenberg comment on the efficiency of Reading Simplified.
Few solutions to reading achievement offer the efficiency and effectiveness embedded in the Reading Simplified system (see Dr. Mark Seidenberg's praise).
Both teachers and students benefit from the accelerated progress that Reading Simplified delivers.
We hope that the information in this article, together with our efficacy document on the Reading Simplified method, effectively demonstrate how modern reading research and theories support the efficacy and efficiency of approaches like Reading Simplified.
These methods are confirmed as suitable instructional strategies for assisting dyslexic students!
If you want to learn more about Reading Simplified and other structured linguistic phonics methods, you can join Reading Simplified Academy. You can also join and follow S2P / SLL / Linguistic Phonics Exploration | Facebook to get support and learn from other educators and parents.
References:
Amendum, S., Vernon-Feagans, L., & Ginsberg, M. (2011). The effectiveness of a technologically facilitated classroom-based early reading intervention. Elementary School Journal. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259708793_The_Effectiveness_of_a_Technologically_Facilitated_Classroom-Based_Early_Reading_Intervention
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Retrieved from https://dsm.psychiatryonline.org/doi/book/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425787
Austin, C., Stevens, A., Demchack, A., & Solari, E. (2023). Orton-Gillingham: which aspects are supported by research adn which require additional research? The Reading League. TRLJ Feature October 2023 [PDF]. Retrieved from https://www.thereadingleague.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/TRLJ-Feature-October-2023.pdf
Catts, H. W., Terry, N. P., Lonigan, C. J., Compton, D. L., Wagner, R. K., Steacy, L. M., Farquharson, K., & Petscher, Y. (2024). Revisiting the definition of dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-023-00295-3
Center on Improving Literacy. (n.d.). Dyslexia. Retrieved from https://improvingliteracy.org/topic/dyslexia/
Center on Improving Literacy. (n.d.). Evidence: 40 years of research on intervention for students at risk for dyslexia [Video]. Retrieved from https://improvingliteracy.org/video/evidence-40-years-research-intervention-students-or-risk-dyslexia/
Bratsch-Hines, M., Vernon-Feagans, L., Pedonti, S., & Varghese, C. (2019). Differential Effects of the Targeted Reading Intervention for Students With Low Phonological Awareness and/or Vocabulary. Learning Disability Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948719858683
Clemens, N. H., & Vaughn, S. (2023). Understandings and misunderstandings about dyslexia: introduction to the special issue. Reading Research Quarterly, 58(2), 181-187. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.499
CORE. (2024). Misunderstandings about the science of reading. Retrieved from https://www.corelearn.com/resource-posts/misunderstandings-about-the-science-of-reading/
Fein, D. (2023). A Speech-to-Print Linguistic Phonics Approach [PDF]. Retrieved from https://www.aetonline.org/images/MEMBER_CENTER_Section/Journal_Docs/2023/44-2/Fall2023_03_ASpeech-to-PrintLinguisticPhonicsApproach-Fein.pdf
Hall, C., Dahl-Leonard, K., Cho, E., Solari, E. J., Capin, P., Conner, C. L., Henry, A. R., Cook, L., Hayes, L., Vargas, I., Richmond, C. L., & Kehoe, K. F. (2023). Forty years of reading intervention research for elementary students with or at risk for dyslexia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 58(2), 285-312. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.477
Institute of Education Sciences. (n.d.). What Works Clearinghouse: Study Review [Webpage]. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/study/81447
IES Director. (2019, April 15). Remarks of Mark Schneider at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA). Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/director/remarks/4-15-2019.asp
Indiana Department of Education. (n.d.). Dyslexia Intervention Lesson Plan Template [PDF]. Retrieved from https://www.in.gov/doe/files/16-dyslexia-intervention-lesson-plan-template.pdf
International Dyslexia Association. (n.d.). Definition of dyslexia. Retrieved from https://dyslexiaida.org/definition-of-dyslexia/
International Dyslexia Association. (n.d.) Dyslexia at a glance. https://dyslexiaida.org/dyslexia-at-a-glance/
International Dyslexia Association. (n.d.). Effective reading instruction. Retrieved from https://dyslexiaida.org/effective-reading-instruction/
International Dyslexia Association. (2019). In defense of facts: A reply to 57 reading voices on the issue of dyslexia. Retrieved from https://dyslexiaida.org/in-defense-of-facts-a-reply-to-57-reading-voices-on-the-issue-of-dyslexia/
International Dyslexia Association Ontario. (Reading Road Trip). (2024, February 19). Dyslexia facts, myths and strategies with Dr. Jack Fletcher [S2, E8]. Apple Podcasts. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/s2-e8-dyslexia-facts-myths-and-strategies-with-dr/id1691166511?i=1000645848121
Literacy Today. (2023). The Dyslexia Issue [Flip book]. International Literacy Association. Retrieved from https://publuu.com/flip-book/24429/594564
Kearns, D. M. Does English Have Useful Syllable Division Patterns? Reading Research Quarterly, 55, S145-S160. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.342
Kilpatrick, D. A. (2015). Essentials of Assessing, Preventing, and Overcoming Reading Difficulties (1st ed.). Wiley.
The Measured Mom. (n.d.). What Is SET for variability? A conversation with Dr. Marnie Ginsberg. Retrieved from https://www.themeasuredmom.com/what-is-set-for-variability-a-conversation-with-dr-marnie-ginsberg/
Moats, L. C. (2020). How spelling supports reading: And why it is more regular and predictable than you may think. American Educator, 44(2), 14-22. Retrieved from https://www.aft.org/ae/summer2020/moats
NWEA. (2024, March 14). 6 Strategies for Teaching Multisyllabic Word Reading [Blog post]. NWEA Blog. Retrieved from https://www.nwea.org/blog/2024/6-strategies-for-teaching-multisyllabic-word-reading/
Phonics Hero. (n.d.). How children learn to read. Retrieved from https://phonicshero.com/how-children-learn-to-read/
The Reading League. (2023). The Reading League Curriculum Evaluation Guidelines 2023 [PDF]. Retrieved from https://www.thereadingleague.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/The-Reading-League-Curriculum-Evaluation-Guidelines-2023.pdf
Reed-Marshall, T. (2020). One simple equity question:If you want every student to be literate, lead instruction using a strategy that’s proven by science. Retrieved from https://www.naesp.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/ReedMarshall_ND20.pdf
Ritchey, K. D., & Goeke, J. L. (2006). Orton-Gillingham and Orton-Gillingham—based reading instruction. The Journal of Special Education. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669060400030501
Rose, J. (2006). Identifying and Teaching Children and Young People with Dyslexia and Literacy Difficulties: An Independent Report. The Reading League. Retrieved from https://www.thereadingleague.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Rose-Report.pdf
Schatschneider, C. & Hart. S.A. (2024) Race/Ethnicity and the identification of reading disabilities: unexpectedness Impacts the identification of minoritized students. OSF Preprints. https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/qj5xv
Seidenberg, M. (2017) Language at the speed of sight. Basic Books, U.S.
Shanahan, T. (2021, March 19). On eating elephants and teaching syllabication [Blog post]. Shanahan on Literacy. Retrieved from https://www.shanahanonliteracy.com/blog/on-eating-elephants-and-teaching-syllabication
Share, D. (2023). Cracking the Code: Decoding, Self-teaching, and Dyslexia [ResearchGate]. ResearchGate. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374383792_Cracking_the_Code_Decoding_Self-teaching_and_Dyslexia
Snowling, M., Hulme, C. (2024) Do we really need a new definition of dyslexia? A commentary. Ann. of Dyslexia. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-024-00305-y
Steacy, L. M., Wade-Woolley, L., Rueckl, J. G., Pugh, K., Elliott, J. D., & Compton, D. L. (2019). The role of set for variability in irregular word reading: word and child predictors in typically ceveloping readers and students at-risk for reading disabilities. Scientific Studies of Reading : The Official Journal of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading, 23(6), 523. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2019.1620749
Stevens, E. A., Austin, C., Moore, C., Scammacca, N., Boucher, A. N., & Vaughn, S. (2021). Current state of the evidence: examining the effects of Orton-Gillingham reading interventions for students with or at risk for word-level reading disabilities. Exceptional Children, 87(4), 397. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402921993406
Truckenmiller, A. (2024). New and not-well-known research about reading disabilities: teachers want to Know. The Reading Teacher, 77(5), 705-711. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.2280
Wolf, M., Gotlieb, R. J. M., Kim, S. A., Pedroza, V., Rhinehart, L. V., Tempini, M. L. G., & Sears, S. (2024). Towards a dynamic, comprehensive conceptualization of dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-023-00297-1
Vaughn, S., & Fletcher, J. (2020). Serving students with learning disabilities: Reading interventions that work. American Educator, 44(4), 4-9. Retrieved from https://www.aft.org/ae/winter2020-2021/vaughn_fletcher
Vimeo. Ohio Department of Education (2021). [Overcoming dyslexia w/ Jack Fletcher]. Retrieved from https://vimeo.com/547599957
Do Definitions of Dyslexia Need an Update?
Treatment for Word-Level Reading Difficulties
Features of Intervention for Dyslexic Students
Reading Simplified is Appropriate for All Students – Including Those with Dyslexia
The Research on Which Program/Approach is Best for Those With Dyslexia is not Airtight Yet
Who Should Be Responsible for Teaching Children with Dyslexia?