1. UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA Minnesota Center for Reading Research 175 Peik Hall 159 Pillsbury Drive SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455 Contacts: Kathrin Maki: makix312@umn.edu Dr. Matthew Burns: burns258@umn.edu College of Education + Human Development Introduction Elementary schools are more frequently employing problem-solving techniques in which students who are struggling academically receive interventions targeted to improve specific academic skills (Marston, Muyskens, Lau, & Canter, 2003). A synthesis of previous intervention research found that interventions were more effective if they correctly targeted the student’s area of challenge (Burns et al., 2008). In practice, once a screening measure has identified a student as low in a broad area such as reading, assessments of specific subskills can be administered to identify intervention targets (Burns & Gibbons, 2012). Struggling readers tend to follow a developmental progression of phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension (Berninger et al., 2006). Supplemental interventions typically occur in addition to core reading instruction and consist of providing explicit instruction to small groups of students struggling with the same skill deficit (Tilly, 2003). Abstract Students identified as struggling readers participated in one of two types of tier 2 interventions: comprehensive (i.e., addresses multiple reading skills) or targeted intervention (i.e., focuses on one specific skill) over the course of a school year. Students in the targeted intervention group made significantly more growth than students participating in comprehensive interventions and students not receiving tier 2 intervention. In addition, the percentage of students making one year’s worth of growth on at least one of two measures was greater for students receiving targeted tier 2 intervention versus students in comprehensive interventions and students not receiving tier 2 intervention. Method Participants. 306 second-grade and 303 third-grade students from six elementary schools in an urban school district. The total sample consisted of 51.4% females, 14% white students, and 80% were eligible for the Federal Free or Reduced Price Lunch program. None of the students received special education services. Measures Oral Reading Fluency. Students were assessed with oral reading fluency (ORF) from Aimsweb in the fall, winter, and spring of the academic school year, and were identified as struggling readers if they scored below the seasonal benchmark for their grade. ORF data were also used to monitor progress by assessing the students who received intervention with grade-level probes every other week. Data consisted of the slope of growth computed with ordinary least squares and number of weeks. Measures of Academic Progress (MAP). Students were also assessed with the MAP test (Northwest Evaluation Association, 2003) for reading three times per year. Data were again converted to a rate of growth with ordinary least squares to compute an average increase per week. Intervention Targeted. Students participated in a reading intervention targeted toward their specific need for approximately 20 minutes per day, 4 days per week, in groups of 2 to 4 students. Skills were assessed in phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, and comprehension in order to determine the most fundamental skill in which the student struggled, and the intervention focused on that skill. Comprehensive. Students participated in a small group comprehensive tier 2 intervention using the Fountas and Pinnell Level Literacy Intervention (2011). The Intervention was delivered by school personnel for 3 to 5 times each week. Tier 1. Students scored above screening benchmark criteria and received no supplemental intervention participated only in the core classroom literacy instruction. Limitations & Future Research Limitations: Students were not randomly assigned to groups We did not assess fidelity of intervention for the comprehensive interventions. Future Research: Replicate the current study, but randomly assign students to targeted or comprehensive intervention group. The results of this study suggest that tier 2 literacy interventions targeted to students’ area of challenge is effective, but identifying specific components of administering these interventions in small groups is an area for future research. Discussion Intervention that was targeted to students’ need was significantly more effective than a comprehensive intervention and no intervention for students in 2 nd and 3 rd grades. This finding was consistent with previous research regarding the importance of correctly targeting interventions (Burns, VanDerHeyden, & Boice, 2008). One of the core elements of RTI models is assessing students to identify what their needs are and providing them with explicit instruction in those areas (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006; Justice, 2006). The developmental progression found by Berninger et al. (2006) appeared to be a useful intervention heurisitc. Results Table 1. Mean Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) and Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) Growth for Students in Targeted Intervention, Comprehensive Intervention, and Tier 1 Targeted Intervention Grade 2 MANOVA F (4, 634) = 4.75, p <.01 Targeted Intervention Grade 3 MANOVA F (4, 636) = 3.47, p <.01 Matthew K. Burns, Kathrin E. Maki, Abbey C. Karich, Matthew Hall, Jennifer J. McComas & Lori Helman Comparison of Targeted and Comprehensive Tier 2 Interventions Funding provided by Target Corporation for collaboration with the University of Minnesota, Minnesota Center for Reading Research, & Minnesota Reading Corps.