Skip to the content
Peabody TeachFor teachers and grown-ups

Orton-Gillingham: what it is, how a lesson runs, and what the research says

A structured, multisensory way of teaching reading and spelling, step by step from sounds to words, used mostly with students who have dyslexia or other word-reading difficulties.

Evidence ThinArea Reading3 sources, about 8 minutes to readChecked October 2026

What the research says

  1. Strong
  2. Promising
  3. Mixed
  4. Thin
  5. Contradicted

Thin, which is different from "doesn't work". The most recent meta-analysis found Orton-Gillingham interventions didn't significantly improve foundational reading skills or comprehension for students with or at risk for word-reading disabilities, though the average effect was positive; the What Works Clearinghouse found no studies of unbranded Orton-Gillingham strategies that met its standards; and an earlier review called the evidence inconclusive. Its core, explicit and systematic phonics, is well supported on its own. What hasn't been shown is that the Orton-Gillingham package adds something beyond that.

Rated Thin. No rigorous study supports it. Two studies couldn't tell either way. One review or weaker study adds context but doesn't move the rating. How we rate the evidence

Checked against each source in October 2026.

The studies behind this rating

  1. Stevens et al. (2021)Meta-analysisCan't tell

    Orton-Gillingham reading interventions did not statistically significantly improve foundational skills (phonological awareness, phonics, fluency, spelling) or vocabulary and comprehension for students with or at risk for word-level reading disabilities, although the average effect was positive. The authors call for more rigorous research with larger samples.

    Who School-age childrenEffect ES = 0.22 on foundational skills (p = .40); ES = 0.14 on vocabulary and comprehension (p = .59)Read it at the source (opens in a new tab)
  2. What Works Clearinghouse (2010)Systematic reviewCan't tell

    No studies of unbranded Orton-Gillingham-based strategies for students with learning disabilities met What Works Clearinghouse evidence standards, so the Clearinghouse could draw no conclusion, either way, about whether they work.

    Who School-age childrenRead it at the source (opens in a new tab)
  3. Ritchey & Goeke (2006)Review (adds context, doesn't move the rating)Can't tell

    Of twelve studies, five found Orton-Gillingham instruction better on every outcome measured, four on some outcomes, two found the comparison instruction better, and one found no difference. Given how few studies there were, their lack of rigor and the inconclusive results, the authors concluded more research is needed before a scientific basis can be established.

    Sample 12 experimental or quasi-experimental studies with elementary, adolescent and college studentsRead it at the source (opens in a new tab)

What it is

Orton-Gillingham is an approach, not a single program. It's named for Samuel Orton and Anna Gillingham, and many branded programs used in dyslexia tutoring and special education are built on its principles. Elizabeth Stevens and colleagues describe it as direct, explicit, multisensory, structured, sequential, diagnostic and prescriptive.

In practice that means:

  • Explicit and systematic: letter-sound patterns and spelling rules are taught directly, in a set order, from simple to complex.
  • Multisensory: students see, say, hear and write or trace the letters at the same time (say the sound while writing the letter in the air, on a textured surface, or on paper).
  • Cumulative: each lesson reviews what came before, and students don't move on until a pattern is secure.
  • Diagnostic and prescriptive: the teacher watches errors closely and adjusts the next lesson to them.
  • Often one-to-one or in very small groups, taught by a tutor with specialized training.

It's frequently mentioned alongside "structured literacy", a broader term for explicit, systematic teaching of language structure (sounds, spelling patterns, word parts, sentences). Many structured literacy programs draw on Orton-Gillingham principles; not all structured literacy is Orton-Gillingham.

Its reach has grown fast. Stevens and colleagues note that, after parent advocacy, most states adopted dyslexia legislation and many mandated the Orton-Gillingham approach. That's why teachers may see it named in district plans and in students' individual education programs.

Why it works

The parts of Orton-Gillingham that line up with the wider reading research are well supported. Explicit, systematic teaching of how letters represent sounds is the core of the science of reading, where the evidence is Strong. Cumulative review and close attention to a student's errors are also good teaching.

The question is whether the Orton-Gillingham package, with its particular sequence, multisensory routines and tutoring format, does better than other explicit, systematic teaching. On that, the direct evidence is weak.

Stevens and colleagues' 2021 meta-analysis is the most thorough look. For students with or at risk for word-level reading disabilities, Orton-Gillingham interventions did not significantly improve foundational skills (phonological awareness, phonics, fluency, spelling) or vocabulary and comprehension. The average effect was positive but small and not statistically reliable, and the authors call for more rigorous studies with larger samples.

Earlier reviews found the same gap. The What Works Clearinghouse's 2010 report on unbranded Orton-Gillingham-based strategies for students with learning disabilities found no studies that met its evidence standards, so it could draw no conclusion either way. Kristen Ritchey and Jennifer Goeke's 2006 review of twelve studies found mixed results and called the findings inconclusive, given how few studies there were and how weak most were.

Read this rating carefully "Thin" here means we can't tell from rigorous studies whether Orton-Gillingham beats other explicit, systematic phonics teaching. It doesn't mean it's harmful, and it doesn't mean students in it should be moved out.

How to start, by grade

Grades K–2

  1. Start from a written scope and sequence of letter-sound patterns, and teach each one explicitly before students read it in text.
  2. Use a short multisensory routine for new letters: see the letter, say the sound, write it while saying it. Keep it brisk; the routine supports attention to each letter, not a replacement for practice reading words.
  3. Review previously taught sounds every lesson with a quick card drill.
  4. Blend and read words with the new pattern, then spell words from dictation, saying each sound as it's written.
  5. Read decodable sentences that use only taught patterns, so practice matches teaching.

Grades 3–5

  1. Find exactly where a struggling reader's knowledge of the code breaks down with a quick diagnostic of patterns, then start teaching there.
  2. Teach syllable types and division rules for longer words, and common prefixes and suffixes.
  3. Keep each lesson cumulative: a few minutes of review, new teaching, reading and spelling practice, connected text.
  4. Track accuracy and fluency with one-minute reads every couple of weeks to check the intervention is working.
  5. Keep comprehension and vocabulary going in class, so the student isn't only doing word work.

Grades 6–8

  1. Older students with severe decoding gaps still need systematic teaching of the code; start with a diagnostic, not at the beginning of a sequence they partly know.
  2. Use age-appropriate materials and explain the purpose, so the work doesn't feel babyish.
  3. Teach morphology (roots, prefixes, suffixes) alongside phonics; it supports spelling, decoding and vocabulary.
  4. Measure progress and change course if a student isn't gaining after several weeks.

Examples

  • A typical tutoring lessonGrades 1–5

    Card drill of known letter-sound patterns (three minutes). New pattern: the tutor shows ck, the student says /k/ while writing it, and they discuss when ck is used (four minutes). Blending and reading single words with the pattern (five minutes). Dictation: the student spells words and a sentence, saying each sound (eight minutes). Reading a decodable passage (ten minutes).

  • Sky writing a letterKindergarten–1st grade

    The teacher models writing b large in the air with a straight arm, saying /b/ at each stroke. Students copy, then write it on the table with a finger, then on paper, saying the sound each time. Then they read three words starting with b. Total: about two minutes.

  • Finding the break in the codeGrades 3–8

    A fourth grader reads grade-level text slowly and guesses at long words. A ten-minute check of patterns shows she knows single-syllable patterns but not vowel teams or syllable division. Intervention starts with vowel teams, not with short vowels she already knows.

  • Spelling from dictationGrades 1–4

    The teacher says chop. The student repeats it, taps out the sounds (/ch/ /o/ /p/), names the spelling for each sound, writes the word saying each sound, then reads it back. Errors show exactly which sound-spelling link needs more teaching tomorrow.

Common mistakes

Treating the label as proof.
A program described as Orton-Gillingham isn't automatically effective, and one that isn't can be just as good. Ask what students do in a lesson and whether the program has been tested with students like yours.
Starting every student at the beginning.
Cumulative doesn't mean everyone starts at short vowels. A quick diagnostic shows where a student's knowledge breaks down; start teaching there and review the rest briefly.
Letting multisensory routines crowd out reading.
Tracing and tapping take time. Make sure each lesson still has plenty of reading and spelling of real words and connected text.
Word work only.
Students in intensive decoding intervention still need vocabulary, knowledge and comprehension. Keep them in rich read-alouds and discussion in class.
Not measuring progress.
Whatever program you use, check accuracy and fluency every few weeks. If a student isn't moving, change something rather than waiting a year.

Time and cost

Time: usually several sessions a week, for months or longer, whether one-to-one or in a very small group.

Money: often high. Specialized training for tutors and teachers can be long and expensive, and private tutoring is costly for families. Branded programs add material costs.

Training: substantial, and that's part of the appeal: tutors learn the structure of English in depth. Some of that knowledge transfers to any explicit, systematic teaching.

Debates and open questions

Why did the meta-analysis find no significant effect? Stevens and colleagues found a positive but non-significant average, from a small body of studies. That pattern usually means the studies were too few or too small to be sure, not that the approach does nothing. Their own conclusion is a call for larger, more rigorous research.

Does the multisensory part add anything? It's the feature most associated with Orton-Gillingham, but the reviews we cite test whole programs rather than the multisensory element on its own. We don't yet have a source on this card that separates its effect from the explicit, systematic phonics it comes with.

Laws that name a method. Stevens and colleagues note that many states mandated the Orton-Gillingham approach in dyslexia laws. Writing a specific method into law when the direct evidence for it is thin is a live debate; requiring explicit, systematic teaching of the code is on firmer ground.

What should a parent or teacher do now? If a student is in an Orton-Gillingham program and making good progress on regular checks, there's no research reason to stop. If they aren't progressing, the evidence supports trying other explicit, systematic, intensive intervention rather than more of the same.

Tools that do it

Free, on this site, nothing to sign up for. Class lists stay in your browser.

Questions teachers ask

Is Orton-Gillingham evidence-based?
Its core (explicit, systematic phonics) is. The Orton-Gillingham package itself has thin direct evidence: a 2021 meta-analysis found no statistically significant effect, the What Works Clearinghouse found no studies meeting its standards, and an earlier review called the evidence inconclusive. Thin means unproven, not disproven.
Is Orton-Gillingham the same as structured literacy?
Not exactly. Structured literacy is the broader term for explicit, systematic teaching of language structure. Many structured literacy programs draw on Orton-Gillingham principles, but structured literacy also includes programs that don't.
Is it only for students with dyslexia?
It was designed for them and is mostly used with them, often one-to-one. The same principles of explicit, systematic, cumulative teaching are used with whole classes in many early reading programs.
Does the multisensory part matter?
We don't know from the studies on this card, which test whole programs. Multisensory routines are harmless when brief, but they shouldn't take time away from reading and spelling real words.
My state requires Orton-Gillingham. What does that mean for me?
Follow your district's guidance on which programs and training it uses. Whatever the program, the practices with the best evidence are the same: explicit, systematic teaching of the code, plenty of reading practice with taught patterns, and regular checks of progress.
Should we stop using it?
Not because of this rating alone. If students are making good progress on regular checks, keep going. If they aren't, the research supports changing the intervention, or its intensity, rather than continuing unchanged.

Cite this card

Peabody Teach. (2026, October 29). Orton-Gillingham: what it is, how a lesson runs, and what the research says. https://teach.peabody.kids/library/practices/orton-gillingham

Written for teachers by Peabody Teach from the sources listed above, which we read on the publisher's or clearinghouse's own page. We summarize and link; we don't copy. No ads, no affiliate links. Something wrong or out of date? Tell us.