Gillingham (1956) labored countless hours in the pursuit of an instructional process for students who have language deficits. Gillingham worked closely with Dr. Orton, a neurologist, in his research lab, investigating the struggles in reading acquisition of children referred to Dr. Orton. Gillingham used Dr. Orton’s theory (1955, 1956) regarding language function to find solutions to students’ reading problems. Many of the students who were referred to Dr. Orton had emotional issues and reading acquisition deficits, and students were three to four years behind students of their age.
Most of the students referred to Dr. Orton’s practice had similar characteristics in relation to their learning abilities. Students were often assessed in the higher intelligence range (Gillingham, 1956). However, students often shut down when reading was mentioned. Most students had proficient memories. Most students also wrote their letters in a mirrored image. All students gave great effort in learning to read, but most of them were often labeled as lazy or uncooperative. Many of the referred students were thought to have emotional issues that were believed to be the central issue in learning to read. Many of the students were tested by an oculist or optometrist for vision issues, but usually, no vision issues were found. Parents were flustered about why their children could not learn to read, but their siblings could learn to read. Gillingham noted that most of the students had a family history of reading acquisition deficits. Gillingham found that many of the students responded positively to other forms of reading curriculum and instruction given by a remedial teacher, and then most of the emotional issues dissipated.
Gillingham (1955) also came to the conclusion that students who struggled with reading acquisition skills could be assessed and taught using a different curriculum than the dominant reading curriculum. This different curriculum and instruction would teach these students how to read and allow them to keep up with their peers academically. Gillingham believed that this new type of instruction would prevent students from experiencing “the heartache and frustration and their parents from the anxiety and expense that is now met when the child is a reading case” (p. 28).
Gillingham (1956) wrote a manual based on her findings about how to teach students to read. The predominant form of reading instruction was whole word. Gillingham used the “reading and spelling with phonetic words” curriculum and instruction for students who were identified as having possible or known deficits in learning to reading (p. 39). The major support systems for students struggling with reading acquisition skills are noted in Gillingham’s 1956 manual, which is titled Remedial Training for Children with Specific Disability in Reading, Spelling, and Penmanship. Gillingham describes the teacher’s role in teaching students with reading deficits. Gillingham also describes current research theories in teaching struggling learners how to read. The roles of school administrators and of parents are also described. In addition, Gillingham included descriptions of technology, curriculum, and student motivation in learning how to read. Community support systems for remedial students are also noted. My next blog will describe Gillingham’s theory about phonics remediation in further detail.
References
Gillingham, A, & Stillman, B. (1956). Remedial training for children with specific disability in reading, spelling, and penmanship. Cambridge: Education Publication Service, Inc.
Gillingham, A. (1955). The prevention of scholastic failure due to specific language disability, part I. Bronxville: N.Y. Academy of Medicine.
