Matching interventions to reading needs: A case for differentiation

Jones, J.S., Conradi, K., & Amendum, S.J. (2016). Matching interventions to reading needs: A case for differentiation. The Reading Teacher, 70, 307-316.


Students who fail reading comprehension tests do not all have the same needs; therefore, they should not all receive the same generic interventions. Rather, they need “brief, systematic interventions targeting the students’ most pressing need” (p. 307). That makes a lot of sense, but according to Jones and her colleagues, that isn’t what often happens.

Jones et al studied third grade students who had failed reading comprehension tests, and discovered five distinct student profiles, reflecting three different need areas. The student profiles are outlined in Table 1 (p. 308), and percentages are given for each profile. The profiles are familiar to anyone who has worked with struggling readers; we know these students. By far the most common profile was “Accuracy and Rate adequate, some comprehension problems”, at 48.5%. Overall, students had varying needs, with some needing work on fluency (28.5%), and a small number needing help with accurate decoding (8.1%). There was one group of students (14.8%) who had excellent accuracy and fluency, but still had problems with comprehension.

With these different needs, different interventions are clearly called for. It makes no sense to waste a child’s time on generic, one-size-fits-all interventions that target needs he/she does not have, but that is what these authors claim happens. One wonders why. Is it easier and maybe more economical to teach kids in groups with generic instruction that you hope will hit some of a child’s needs some of the time? Teachers’ time, attention, and knowledge about effective interventions may be in short supply in a typical school setting. Or could it be that we lack the fine-tuned assessments to prescribe the fine-tuned interventions that struggling readers need? It’s easy to criticize interventions that don’t give kids what they need, but it’s important to also look at why that happens.

Those questions need to be asked, and those “whys” kept popping into my head as I read. Those questions were not answered here, but there is a lot that is useful. Particularly helpful elements included the “Flowchart to Determine a Student’s Primary Need for Literacy Intervention” (Fig. 1 on p. 309), and the example lesson plans targeting decoding needs, fluency needs, and comprehension needs (Table 2 on p. 310). On the Flowchart, comprehension is given its due importance; if a child is comprehending text, that is the “bottom line”, and interventions targeting fluency and decoding are not necessary.

This article provides some sensible advice about how we might effectively differentiate interventions for students struggling with reading comprehension, and provides a starter collection of specific instructional ideas to target specific needs. There is, of course, much more to learn about how best to assess, and then address, the needs of struggling readers. We also need to do a better job of getting what we learn into the hands of teachers, so we can help them make the most beneficial decisions for each one of the young readers they work with.