Speech-to-Print vs. Orton-Gillingham
Structured Literacy is a comprehensive, research-based framework designed to deliver explicit, systematic, and sequential instruction in reading and writing. It encompasses various methodologies aimed at supporting students with diverse learning needs, including Speech-to-Print. Like the Orton-Gillingham (OG) approach, Speech-to-Print relies on evidence-based practices and structured, multisensory instruction. However, it takes a different path by emphasizing the natural connection between spoken language and literacy, leveraging what students already know about speech to teach them how to read and write.
While Orton-Gillingham is well-known for its systematic approach to breaking language into manageable parts and teaching through multisensory strategies, Speech-to-Print works from a similar foundation with a distinct focus. It bridges the gap between phonological awareness (spoken sounds) and orthographic understanding (written words), starting with the idea that children learn to speak and recognize sounds long before they learn to read or write. By tapping into this existing knowledge, Speech-to-Print helps students make connections between the sounds (phonemes) they hear and the letters (graphemes) that represent those sounds in written language.
How Speech-to-Print Fits Within Structured Literacy
Like Orton-Gillingham, Speech-to-Print instruction is explicit, with instructors directly teaching how sounds connect to letters and how words are constructed. It’s also sequential, following a logical progression from basic phonological awareness to more advanced word structures. Both approaches rely on fidelity—sticking to the prescribed steps to ensure the instruction is effective—and use multisensory techniques, engaging students through sight, sound, and touch to deepen learning.
The main difference lies in the emphasis. Orton-Gillingham focuses on structured, multisensory activities and drills to teach specific reading and spelling rules. Speech-to-Print, on the other hand, draws heavily on students’ pre-existing spoken language skills, helping them build connections between what they already know about speech and how that knowledge translates to written language.
Both methods share a common goal: to provide explicit, systematic, and multisensory instruction that builds a strong foundation for reading, spelling, and writing. They can be used separately or in tandem, depending on a student’s unique needs, offering educators flexibility while ensuring evidence-based instruction is at the core.
Speech-to-Print (S2P): A Streamlined Approach to Literacy Instruction
The Speech-to-Print (S2P) approach, also known as linguistic phonics or structured linguistic literacy, prioritizes the direct relationship between the individual sounds (phonemes) of spoken language and their corresponding written symbols (graphemes). S2P emphasizes a minimalist, integrated methodology that scaffolds learning with targeted practice and immediate feedback.
How Does S2P Differ from Orton-Gillingham (O-G)?
Both S2P and O-G share evidence-based principles such as explicit, direct, and systematic instruction, diagnostic and prescriptive methods, and a code-based focus on sound-letter relationships. However, key differences set S2P apart:
Avoidance of Rules and Labels: S2P does not categorize words by syllable types (e.g., open, closed) or apply rules for syllable division. Instead, it focuses on natural speech patterns and phoneme-grapheme relationships.
Faster Progression: S2P transitions students to reading broader, uncontrolled texts more quickly by integrating sound-symbol knowledge with meaningful practice.
Minimalism and Efficiency: The approach avoids extraneous tools like flashcards or sandpaper letters, focusing solely on core concepts and essential skills.
Core Elements of S2P Instruction
Conceptual Understanding:
Written symbols represent sounds.
Sounds can be spelled with 1–4 letters.
A sound can have multiple spellings, and a spelling can represent multiple sounds.
Skill Development:
Direct instruction in segmenting, blending, and manipulating sounds with print.
Activities like chaining words to develop flexibility in decoding and encoding.
Systematic progression from simple (CVC words) to complex (multisyllabic words).
Code Knowledge:
Integrates phoneme awareness with print, skipping oral-only phonological tasks.
Theoretical Underpinnings of S2P
S2P aligns with key insights from reading science:
Orthographic Mapping (Ehri, 2014): Establishing phoneme-grapheme connections to learn word spellings.
Set for Variability (Steacy et al., 2019): Encouraging adaptability in decoding irregular pronunciations.
Self-Teaching Mechanism (Share, 1995): Promoting independent word learning through exposure.
Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) (Sweller, 1994): Reducing unnecessary cognitive demands for efficient learning.
Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) in S2P
CLT emphasizes the limits of working memory and categorizes cognitive load into three types:
Intrinsic Load: The natural complexity of the material.
Extraneous Load: Unnecessary mental effort from poorly designed instruction.
Germane Load: Cognitive effort directed toward building long-term understanding.
For children with language delays, disorders, or learning disabilities, CLT is especially beneficial because it provides strategies to reduce extraneous load and manage intrinsic load effectively, ensuring their working memory can focus on meaningful learning. Here's why:
1. Simplified and Structured Content
Children with language challenges may struggle with verbal reasoning and comprehension. By reducing extraneous load through simplified, step-by-step instructions and visual supports, educators make tasks more accessible.
2. Breaking Down Complex Information
Complex tasks can overwhelm working memory, particularly for students with processing difficulties. CLT encourages breaking lessons into smaller, manageable chunks (chunking), which reduces intrinsic load and promotes understanding.
3. Supporting Long-Term Learning
Language development and academic success rely heavily on building schemas—organized knowledge structures. By focusing on germane load, educators help children link new information to prior knowledge, facilitating stronger retention.
4. Encouraging Multisensory Learning
Multisensory methods, such as pairing spoken words with visuals or gestures, offload some cognitive demands from verbal processing and engage multiple areas of the brain, improving comprehension for children with diverse needs.
5. Fostering Confidence and Reducing Anxiety
Children with learning disabilities often experience anxiety when tasks feel overwhelming. By reducing cognitive load, tasks feel more achievable, which fosters confidence and motivation.
When CLT principles are applied thoughtfully, they not only enhance learning outcomes for children with language and learning challenges but also create a more equitable and inclusive educational environment.
My Approach to Instruction: Tailoring to the Needs of Every Child
Drawing on my experience and understanding of how children with diverse learning needs develop, I base my instruction on each individual child. I recognize that every learner is unique, especially those with dyslexia, language impairments, and other learning challenges. This is why I emphasize flexibility, adaptation, and scaffolding to ensure that students are not only progressing, but developing a deep understanding of literacy concepts.
