GRADETHREE READERS' INFERENCE STRATEGI ES: THE IDENTIF ICATIO N OF AND RELATIONSHIPTO
READI NG ABILITY
by
Sheila AnnYetman , B.A.(Ed .), B. A.
A thes is su bmi t t e d to the School of Graduate Studie s in pa rti a l fulfilmentof the requirements
for the degree of Master of Educat ion
Facultyof Education MemorialUni ve r s i t y of Ne....foundland
September, 1991
St..rchnvs I:ewfoundland
1+1
01 CanadaNation alLibrary 8ibiiOlhCqvenalionaiccccereoa
Canadianrnesesscrvcc servceccsueses caoacerocs
The author has granted an irrevocablenon- exclusi velicence allowing the National Ubrary of canada to reproduce,loan.d"lSbibuleorsell copies of his/herthesisby anymeans and in anyformor format,makingthisthesis8..',u1able tointerest edpersons.
The author retains ownership of the copyright in his/her thesis. Neitherthethesisnor substan tialextract s fromIt maybeprintedor otherwise reprodu cedwithouthis/her per- mission.
L'suleur aeccoroeunelicence irrevocableat non exclusi ve perme ttanlaIaBib llolheQue nationaleduCanada dereprodce e.oreter.
distribuerou vendre descopiesde sathese dequelque manereatsousqua{querorme que ceeonpourrnettre des exemplalresde cettetheseaIadisposition despersonnel>
inter"isees .
L'auleur conserveLaproprietedodroit d'nutcer qui protege sathese . NiLathese oi des cxtraits substantletsde ceue-ct no doivent etre imprimes ouautreme nlreprodcns sansson auto risation.
Canada
Dedicatedto mymotherand in memory of myfather
i i
Abstract
Re ad i ng comprehension consists ofanumber of cognit i ve processesthat are used to constructme a n i ng. The researc h reported herein investigated the inf e r ri ng process which is cons i de r e d to be essential to the comprehe nsionof text. The purpose of the study was toide nt ify the inference strategies of grade three readers and to determinewhether orno t ther e was a relationshipbetween reading abili tyand stra t e g y use . Thi r t y grade three L-eaders from two heterogeneousclasses compri s e d the sa mple. usi ng a combined methodology of independent ve r ba l reports and que s t i o ns where necessary , the readers were asked to verbalize What they ....ere thinking as the y read a narrative text. The questions ....ere used to supplement the reports in cases where inSUfficient or uncIeer Ln r c ea a e rcn was givenby the readers. The verbal reports were analyzed to determine ho.... the readers made their interpretationsof the story . Reading ability ....as determine d by the percentiles achieved on the Voc a bu l a ry and comprehension subtests of the Canadian Testsof Basic Sk i lls (King-shaw, 1989).
The data were analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively.
Qualitative results sho ....ed that the grade three readers used nine inference strategies in their attempts to comprehend the narrative. Quantitative results showed a significant positive relationship between vocabulary and comprehension, significant negative relationship between voc a bu l a r y,
iii
comprehension, and strategy 5 (d efa ult i ng and transforming ) and a numbe r of significantpositive relationships among the strategies themselves.
Conclusionsof the study, implicationsforco mpr e he ns io n instructi o nand recommendationsfor furth.erresearchare also discussed.
iv
Ac kno W'ledge ments
The investiqa tor woul d like to expre s s her sincere apprecia tion and gratitud e to her supe rvisor, Or. Linda Phill ips, forher gUid a nce, enc ourage ment, andaccess i b ility throughou t theprepa r a tion.deve l op men t.andwritingof this thesis. Helpfu l sugges t i ons byOr.Ste ph en Nor ri sregar d i ng thequa n tit a t iv edataanalysisare grate f ullyacknowledged .
Si ncere thanks are alsoextendedtothe Roman Cat holic Schoo l Boar dfor Lab rad or,the admi n ist rationand staffofSt.
Mich a e l 'sSchool ,GooseBayforthe ircoope r at i on , support and enc o u r a g e men t duri ngthe phasesot da t a collection .
The coope ra ti on of th e children of the grade three cla sseswhc all agree d topa r ti cip ate in the study is als o appr ec iat ed.
The inves tigator alsowis he s to ackno wled g e the sup p or t and encourag eme nt ofher famil y and fri ends th r ough o u t the writing of th isthesis.
Tabl eof Contents
Page Cha pt.e r1 INTRODUCTION•••• •• ••••••••••••••••••••••
Bac kgroun d of the Study...••• •..•••• • Purp ose ofthe Study ••••••••• • • •. .••. Def i niti onofTenns ••.•• •.••••.• •.••.
Significance of the Study ••. . • ••• .• • • Chapter2 REVIEW OFTHELITERATURE •••..•• ••.• .• .••
Infer ringinRead i ng cceprene os Ien •••
How Are Infe rences Made ? •••• ••••• • •.. 13 In f erri ngand Young Childr en .. .. ... 15 DefiningInferr i ng andIn f e r e nce
Strategy ••••••• •••••••••• •••••••••• 20 Major St ud i eson Inference st r a t s gie s. 23 ReadingProfic iencyandInfere nces 31 Developmental Inferential
comp r e hen sion ••• ••• ••• • •••• • •• •• • •• 34 Cha pt e rJ THEORETICALFRAMEWORKANDMETHODOLOGY ••• 42 Read i ngProcess Method olog ies•••••• • • 42 Hethodoloqy ofthe Present Study ••••• 48 Sample••• ••••••••• •••••••• •• •• ••••••• 49 Materials ••• •••••••• ••••••••• •••••• • • 50
Procedure 54
PilotStudy •• • • • •••••••.• •••• • • • 54 DataColl e c t i o n ••• •.• •••• ••••••• 58 cooingthe Data •••• •• •••• • • •• • •••• • •• 60
vt
DataAnalys i s ... . . ... .... ... . 62 Chapter4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION. .. ... . ... 63 Quali t a t ive Res ul t s . ... . ... 64 Grade Three rnzereneeStrateg ies. 64 compa rison of Grade Three ,Grad e
si x andA~'..ll t Inference
strategies .. .•.. ....• ....•••.• 74 Qua nti t a ti v eRe s u l t s ..•.•• • ...•. .. .. . 83
Readingprofic iency and
StrategyUs e ..•••.•..••.• ••.. . 83 Discussion ofHost Frequently
Use dStra t e gi e s 86
Discussionof Least Frequent ly UsedSt~'ategies.•..•...• •.•..• 88 Discussi onof Voc abu l a ry,
COll'lpr(l:;ansionandSt ra t e gy Correlations .. .. ...•.. .•• . 90 Discussion of Strategy
Intercorrelations .••••... .. ... 92 Ch a pt e r 5 SUMMARY,CONCLUSIONSANDRECOMMENDATIONS 100 Summary••• ••• • •..•••• •.••. .•.. ...• 100 Conc lus i o ns ••.••• • • ••••••..• ...•....• 102 Implications for Instruction.. •. . . .• • 10 4 Recommendationsfor Further Research. 107 REFERENCES
vii
110
,\PPENDICES
LettertoSch o o l Board...•...•. .... •. .•. 118 Letterto Parents •.. ... .• . ... .. . . ... .. .. 120
"Chou-Chou andCa rolina " Story... .... 122 PracticePassages .... .. ... . .. . .. ... ... .. . . II I AVer bal Repo r t ... ... ... . ... 134
viii
List of Tables
Table Paq e
1. Compa ri son of Infe r en c est r a t e q iesto r Three Groups of Re a de r s .... .... ... ...•....•. ..• ...•. . 75 2. r·..ar-s o n Product-MomentCorrelat ions, Means and
St a nd a r d Deviati onstorFrequency ofSt r a t flqy Us ebyReading'Vocabul 1J.ryand Readinq
Comprehension... ... ... . . .. ...• 85
ix
List of Figures Figure
1. Researchers'conception of Reading comprehension
,.
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
Reading comprehens ion 1sma de up or a set of complex, cogn i t i veproce sse s . Itis a constructivep roc e s e invol ving pr oces s e s such pr e d i c t i ng, in fe r ring, ana l yz i ng , synt hesizing , mon i tori ng ,and generaliz ing . Eachrequ iresth~
rea d er in one way or anotherto ehLnk, reason , choose , and elabo ra te in order to determine what fi nal l y be c omes a meaningful rep res ent a t ion ofene text.
Given tue compo sit e cOluplexity of the processe s , th i s stud y willexa mi ne onlythe proce as of inferring ...anatte mpt to undez-azand further what young children do to compre he nd text. Thi s ex a mi na t i on will contribute to a mor e thor ough und e r s t an d i ng of reading comprehension I::yide nti f y i ng Who.t young ch il d r e n are capableatdoing withtext.
This chap t e ris organized around thefollowingheadings : ba c kg ro u nd of the study, purpose of the scud y,definiti onof te rm s,and significanceof the study.
Background of the Study
The belief that making inferencesis an integral part of the comprehension process has permeated reading researchfor ove r three-quartersof this century. If such a belief is the case, then inferring mllst be something that ....e expect young cn t Ldren to be ab1.e to do, yet the evidence is inconsistent.
'the consensus seems to be that young children make many inferences about the world around them by connecting , comparing0311d evaluatingne.... events and experiences with old
and famil iar on es. Su c h behavior seems tobe spon ta neous; nc we v er, that sponta neity is not as evident whe n childre n read. Chil dre n donot make infe r enc e s asspon t a n eous lyduring read i ng as they dowhen involvedin other act iviti es. Some resea rch studie s show tha t young readers can in fact make inferences (Al l en, 1985 ; Danner&Mathews , 1980 )andpossess the basic compe t enc e to make infer e nces (Joh n s on & 8mith, 198 1 ). cc ne r studie s indica te that al t h ough the making of infer e nce s is limi ted by the qua li ty and qua ntity of text clue s and prior knowl e dge (:-Iazor iii vu s se n, 19BJ) , yo u ng read e rscan ma k einfe re n c e s whe nthematerialthey are readi ng is at their ins t r uc ti o n al level (Mali cky&Sch i e nbe in,198 1 ).
Al t h ough the stud y ofin f e r e nce-ma k ing and young chl Idr-en is a recent phenom enon, researchhas shownthat you ng child ren are ca pab l e of making inferences about their surcoundi ngs (Ha ns e n ,19B1a ) . Pr i o r toenteringschool".. .mos t of the i r le a r ning is the resultof inferences thatth e y have had to ma ke about the world" (x crne c e n,19 8 5, p,756) . Eventhou gh children draw inferencesintheir daily activities,seem in,;, ~y spont a ne o u sly, they are no t as cons i s tent about maki ng in fe r e nc e s whenthey areconf r o nt e dwi t hre ad i n g tasks(Ha n s e n
&Hubbard , 1984).
Des p i t e the aforementionedincons istenciesit seemsene c the use of va r i ous stra t e gie s facilitatesyoung children's inf e r e nti a l comprehens ion:uslnginferencetrainingstrategies (De wit ;;; , Carr & Patberg, 1987; aanee n, 198 1 a & b), using
instructional str ategi e s (Ca r r , Dewitz & Pat b erg, 1989;
po Inde xuer-& Prescott, 1986); and modeling awarenessofthe inferringprocess (Gordon , 198 5). Thus,there appears to be strong evidencethat if compre he nsion instru c t i o n weremore directed toward developing inferentia l skills, the n young readers would come to expect tha t the meaning of text is impli c i t as well asexp licit.
Thereare avarie tyof reasons for the suspec t edlack. of inference-making among yo u ngre a de r s: theyare not asked to make inferences because the tas k is conside re d to be too difficult for the m (McInt os h, 1985); te ach e rs emph asize li t e r al comprehensionbel i eving tha tinfere nt i a lco mprehe ns i on will develop with age (Han se n, 1981a); and chil dre n may be li mi t e d in their ability tomak e an inferen ceina pa r t i c ul ar situation beca use they of t e n la c k prior knowle dg e (Hans en, 1981b). De s pit e thesereasons , it seemsre a s ona bl e toac c e pt that in order-to suc ces sfu lly deve lop in fe r ential skills, childrenmus t be c o meact i ve parti cipants inthe process of inference -making (Holling swo r th &Reut zel , 1988).
If young children ma ke inf e r e nc e s in th e i r everyda ylive s and, if the y havethe necessarybackground knOWl e d ge andare compe te nt with the tex t, then do they hav e the st ra tegies ne c e s sa ry tomake inferenceswhentheyread? If the ydo not have such. str ategies, then it see ms it wo u ld be use f u l for te a c h e r s toteach th emhowtoinfer. Thisraisesthe quest i o n
of what strategies te a c he r s wou l d teach? Th e present study was motivat~..lby an interes t in answe ri ng suet> questi ons.
Pur r Jse of the Study
The purpose of the study is to exaeIne the processof infe rringin text coepeenensIcnand to identifythespecific in f e r e n c e strategiesuse dby gr a dethreereaders asthe y read
t.ext; for imme dia te unders ta nding. This study It/ill address
specifically the followingquestions:
1. Wha t are the infe rence str ate g ies use d by grad e thre e readers as they atte mpt tounderstand text?
2. What is the relationship eecveen reading profi ciencyand useof the in fe r encest rateg ies?
Defi ni t ion of Term s
Th e fo ll owingterms ar ede fin ed as they areus e d in th is study:
Inference: an int e rp re ta t ion of text that is construct e d fro mand cons i stent wi t h the textinfo rma tio nandbackg r ound knolt/l e dg e.
Infere nc e strategy : a pl a n or tec hn ique used by the re a der toma ke an inferenc e.
Re a d ing Abil i ty: determi ned by the percentiles ac h ieved on the voc a b u l a ry and Co mprehens ion subtests of the
~a n Tests of Bas is Skil ls
(King -Sha w, 19 89 ) , Level 9, Form7.
Signif ica nceof the Study
Theevi de nc e onchildr e n ' sinferential abil i t y is sc a nty: however, eviden c e tha t the ir rea s o ning is poo r is growing. The 1987 National Assessmen t of Educati o na l Progress (App lebee,Lange r, &MUll is ) on re ading, writingandreasoni ng repo rts that only small perc e ntages of .::hild r e n and young adultscan rea so n effe c t i vel yabou t whatthey are re a d i ng and writing and that mostdemonstra teonly a sur f ac eunderstandi ng of materi a ls for their agele ve l s. Asaresult, the y ar eill- equ ipped to mee t the dema nd s of theworkpl a ce anda society that are increa si ng lybecomingmor etechno logicalandco mp l e x.
As a means of add res s ing these conc e rn s , educators and the genera l pUbli cha ve begu n toenco urage scho o ls to focu s on the deve lopment of effective rea son ing skills. Per haps a wo r \:.hwh ile pl a c eto sta r t is to anal yz e wha t yC,lungreaders are able to do withtext.
Thepr esen t stud ywi llcontr i buteto ou rund e r sta nd i ng of how young ch ildre n processtextin f orma tio n, therebyenhancing our und e rs t a nd i ng of howchild r e nmay bestbetaughttomake inf e r ence s...hile reading. This researchhas imp l i ca t i o n sfor howyoun gch ild r e n canbe taugh t toreadforme a n ing through teach i ng them those stra t egie s that help them make infere nces . Thi s st udy willat t e mp t to show!o!hclo t very young readers doas the y read to understand text. It will also discu s s simi l a r i ti e s and differencesbetween the inference strategies of grade three readers and those of ol d e r readers. This
investiga tion shoul<Ialso increase our unde r sta nd i ngo~ the infe renti a l compr e h e ns ion processing o! you ng reade rs. The mor ewe knowaboutthe wholecompr eh e nsionproces s , then the more effective reading/la nguage programs and tea chinq practice s we can uti l izein our e ressre ess , Thus, i tma y be possible to help le s s pro ficie nt readers i:tprove their co mprehensionbyteachi ngthemthos e inference strateg i e s used suc ces sfu llyby more pro f ic ientre a de r s.
CHAPTER2 REVIEW OF THELITERATURE
While much is already known about reading comprehension, knowledge of this process and it s components is conti nuallyincreasing. I tis generally accepted that reading is a constructive, active pr oc e s s; tha t readers construct Illeantngus i ng information in thete x t and their background knowledge. Making inferences is part of that meaning construction process.
The revi ew of the literatu re and relatedresearch gives a brie f history of the growing int e r e s t in research t.>n inf e r e nc e. This revie w focuseson the role of inference in rea di ng comprehension. To facilitatethis focus, there v i e w is orga nizedarounda number of areasde e me d tobe re lev a nt to inf e r enti al c:cmprehensiongene rallyandto that ofve r y young readers spe c if i c a lly. The re v i ew is st r uc t ure d around the following headings: in f e r ring in reading comprehension, how are inferences made, infer ringand young children, def i n i ng inferring, infe r ence strategy and re a d ing ability, major st ud i e s on inf ere nc e strategies, reading pr o f i c i en c y and infe re nces, anddevelopmenta l infe re ntia l comp r ehension.
InferringinReadi ng comprehensi on
Fo r over three-q ua rtersof this century th ebel i e f that makin g inferences is an integral part of the comprehe nsion processcanbe identifiedinreading re s e arc h . In 1908, Hue y cl aimedto•• •that to readis(no t just)tosay ""ha t isupo n the
page, (but) to .th..1.nk, about the meaning that the page sugg ests," (p. 349 ). Thorndike , in 1917 sugge st edth a t the ability tounder s t a ndthe impl iedide a sofapara gr ap h could be labe l e d as reasoning . In fact,"Understanding apara graph islike solv i ng a problem in mathema t ics," (p. 213) wh e r ei n th e readers must select. conne ct anrt organ iz:e relevan t in fo rma t ion....hil e everbeingmindf ulof thepur p os e sfor whi ch they are re ading. Davis' 1942 su rv ey of ene litera t ur e id e nti fie d "th e ability todr a ....inf e r ence s fr o m a passag e about it s ccneen esv (p. 236) as a group of skill s bas i c to co mprehension. Cons eque ntly , th econc ep t ofma ki ngin f ere nc e s asacognitiv e beha v i or in rea dingis not new but has inde ed a ba s i s that ha sbeenfirmlyest ab lished overtheyea rs .
Simil ar conc lus i o n s have been dr evn recentl y by rese a rchers. rur eeen c e e need to be constructed tom~k esense of a sto ry (Carr, 1983)1comp rehe n ding tex t is imp ossibl e without making in fe r enc e s (McI n tosh, 1985 );infe rence s are an inevita b le par t of th e comprehensi on process (Pe a r son &
Johnso n, 1978) , and the process of good in f e r e nc e -ma kingis the cor e of reading comp re he ns i o n(Philli ps , 1986). Becaus e there is a great deal of inferenc e~ makinq necessary to understandeventhe simplesttext(P e a r s o n&Johnson, 1978) , it vould seem ap pa r e n t then, that there can be no co mprehensi o n'Without making inferences.
Figur e illustra t e s Wilson's summary of ma ny researchersI conc e p t ion s of reading co mpr e h e ns i o n as an int e r a c t ive process. Accord i ngtothis figure readers takenev
Figure 1. ResearchersI conception of Readingcomprehensio n (Wilson, 198 3 , p. 383)
informa t ionfrom thete xt ,combine it withthe irknowl edg e of the lex ica l propert ies of lang uage (Le.,decoding,vocabula ry me a ni ng andsyntax), combine it wi t htheirknowledge of how sto riesgo together (COhe si o n and structur e ) andwi ththeir kno wledg eofthe top i cto co ns t ruc t me a n ing. Wils o n conte nds thatthereader may useasmuc h infonnationas necess a r yfr om any numbe r of these so u r c e s in no partic u.la r order of"
impor t a ncein ord e r to unde r s t a nd the te xt. Thu s , me ani ng is const r uc ted wheninferen c esaremadethrough the integrati on of text info nna tion and backgroundkno wledge. This is the interac tive nat ure of the re a d inq proce ss - -integrat ing ne w
10 informa tio n fr o m the text with the known information in the re a de r' s head.
Wilsonplaced pr i o r knowledgeand infere ncinqskills at ttoF.!centr E'ofth e figure cl earl y ind icat i ngthat unde rstandin g cannot occurunl ess "t he newisconne cte d to theknown". The re a der's interpreta tionis depe n dentoninforma tion frommany differen t sour c es:thus, "Lack ofinfo rmat iononany partof the model can cause comprehe nsion difficulties " (Wil s o n, 1983, p. 38 3 ) . The degree and ki nd of compr ehension di f fi cul t i e s ma y depend on vnere and to wh a t extent the informationwas lacking. forexample, young chil d r e n do not necessar ily ne e dto decode everyword in ord e r tointer-preta text. Bec ause miscues that do notinter fe re wi th meaningare acceptab l e,suchdecoding miscues canoccurwitho utdetr acting from the readers ' inter pr eta t io n to any large extent.
similarly, while the readers ' voc a bula ry kno wledge may initial ly excludea relevant conc e pt foraparticularco nte xt, textual cues may in factexte n d the readersI knowl ed g e to inc lu de a new semant i c re l a t i on sh ipwith those theyalrea dy ha v e.
compre hens i on ismuc hmore than knowing eve ry word upon a pageof text: in fact, compr e hensi o nca nno t necessa ri l y be assumed trom word pert ect readi ng (Smi t h , 19 7 2). Comp r eh e n sionisco n s t ru c ting meani ng tromprint. Readersdo th i sbyint.i!r llctinq wi thprin t --hypothesi zing ,evaluating and in t e rp r e t i ng what the y read in te rm s ot their own prior
11 knowledgeandexperienc e (Pe arso n&Johnson, 197 8) . Ne it her profi c ientwordrecogn itionnor priorkno ....ledge an daxpez-Lence of a particular text canguarantee tha t comprehe ns io n will In ot he r words, it cannot be as su med that be c aus e rea de r s re ad flu e n tly and are fami liar ....ithth e topic that the ywill inevitab l yund e r s t and the text. The re ad ers' pri or kno ....ledge may be vagu e , di s t ortedand/or fra gllle nte dand thu s may imp ai r comp r e h e nsion (Lip so n, 198 4 ) .
The fin dingsoftheLipsonscvc Les(19 82,1983) con curre d withPear son, Han s en andGordon (197 9) thata ....ell-develope d schema ta (re:!'!va.n t ba c kground knowledge ) facilitates all compr ehen si o n but particula rly in f e r en t i al comprehens i on, ....hile a po orl y-de ve l op ed sc hemata hind e r s understan d i ng.
Addi t ionally,the Lipso nst udiesindi c atedthatyoun g readers ....i11re ly more heav ily on theirbackgroundkno....ledge evenwhen it doe s not agree....it h the text in f o rma tio n. In fac t, the y we re more likel yto manipulate the textto align it Iotith the knolotl e dg ethe y held. Whileit isadvantageousthatbackground knowledgebe relevantandaccurateto thetopi c,young readers need to be taught to integrate it Iotith text in f orma tio n.
Some time s i t may be necessary to re-evaluate and change sc he ma t a ....hen te xtua l in fo rma t i on indi cate s it s inaccuracy. When there is a mis match bet....een pri or knowledge and text in f orm a tio n , comprehensionwill not be fa ci lit at ed.
Besidesprior knowl edg e of the top ic , other factorsalso in fl ue nc e how well the text Iotillbe comprehended. The manner
12
in whi c hthe textis ...rit t en is su ch a factor. The..,ay the
se n t encesareconnected, i.e.,thecohesivene s s of the te xt. is a sign i ficant det erai ne r of co mprehe nsion (Frepbody • And e rson, 1983). The read e r·],1s oex pects thetext to have a st ructur al orqa nization . I ftho se expecta tionsare noteee, whichisfr equen tlythe ca s e withpoorly-structuredstorie s , readers' co mpre he nsion,especially thatof poorreaders,will be seriously impai r e d (Br e nn a n, Bri dge ' Winograd, 1986;
Whaley, 19 8 1). Beca u s e structur e oper a te s over the whole passage, comprehensionwillnot be facilitatedifthe passage st r uc t ur e isdisjointed. Thatis. i fsentencesdo not follow logically from one toanother and lIlain ide a s do no t have supporting detai ls,understanding willbeminima l at best.
The comprehensionof text , the n, isdependent upo n the textandth e rea de r. Rea ders !lus t becompe tent withthe text and be ab l eto drawin f ol-ma t ionfromlIany sourceswithin the text and within the msel ves . Th i s compe t e nc e necess i t ates thinking about, connect i ng, eval uati ng, and int e g r:. c.i ng new and old in fot1Da tio n inor de r to decide on an int e rp r e t a ti o n tha t is co nsistent with both the te xt and the reader's knowle dge.
HoW, then, can infere ncesbe generatedandenue,reading co mprehensiontacilitated? The followi ng section addresses these quest ions.
13 Ho... AreIn f e r e n c e s Made?
Readingcomprehens ionis define din termsofanumberof cognit ive proce sses whichreaders use in the ir search for me a ning. Maki ng inf e r en ces isone of these processes. To cons truct an in f erence the re a de r is required to fill in miss ing inf orma t i on or toconnect propo s i t i ons in the text that ar e imp l ie d bythe author (Hol\11es , 198 3 , 19871Pear s o n
&Johnso n , 19 78; Warren , Nicholas& Trabass o, 1979 ). Making
inf e r e nces isnec essarybec a u s e authors dono t include every deta il and des cr iption of action and character when they write. rf they di d , then the text would be dul l.
uni nterestin g anda choretoread. In essence,authors as su me that re aders .... ill bringa ce rtainbod y of knowledge toth e text and wi l l us e that knOWl e dge to bridge the missinglinks whichar e apparent inprint. cons e que nt ly, readers fill in this missing inf onatio n onthe basis of what they already kno....or make connections with text facts asthe y read, that is, they in f e r . In fact, the textitself does not specify a particularmeani ng: This is negotiated betweenthe author and the reader, with the teacher pl ayingthe role of guide in hel pingst Ud e nt s negotiatea me a n i ng (Pearson, 1985).
To make an inference,readers integrate the information in the text with information they already know to make a plausible interpretation of that text (Phillips, 1989a).
Rea de r s hypothesizejanalyze and evaluate the text intonati o n andtheir backgroundknowledge. The piecesatintormation are
consideredand meshe dtogether .... ith the reace r concluding that a critical piece of information that ....as not explicitly stated in the text but necessary for itsunderstandinghasno been accounted for. It is not possible to comprehend it ho ut thinkingabout ideas and using a variety of informa tion to unders tandte x t (Carr, De.... itz andPat b erg, 1989). Usingte xt information and ba c kgrou nd kno.... le dge , readers inf e r the missi ng inf ormat ion (Carr , 198 3 ) , " ...construct complete interpretations tha tar econsistent with bo th... " (Phillips, 1989a,p.4) andthe r eby constructme aningfr olll information on thepa g e and informationalreadyinthe i r minds (Be Ck, 198 9 ) . In makinginf erences ,reade rs seemtota ke on the roleof detect i ve s. Firs t, they recogni ze tha t a pi e c e ofreleva nt information is missing or a relat i onsh i p is impli ed.
subsequent ly. they search the tex t and the ir ba c kgro und kncvj.edqe fo r clues that ....ill hel p them set tl e on the rel a t ions hip or solve the problem that is inte r f ering wi th thei r progres s in unders t a nd ing the text. Oncethe problem has be e n res o lved (i.e., an inference made), re aders then proce e d with the text and the pro~e ss of infe r en c e -ma king contin ues as read ers st r ivetorunderstandi ng .
Althoug hmak ingin f e rences isa co mplexprocess ,itis a nece s saryand vi talcomponent of mean ing construct i on . The te xt i tselfdoes no tst a t e all thein fo rma t ion explicitlyand any numbe rof relationsh ipsare implicit in all types of text.
Phillips (198 1) co nt e nds that
15 Infere nce s per l or",at le a s t two ba s i c funct i o n s . Inthetirstplace . th eyallow the reade r toextend and enri ch th e expl ic i t me an i nq s in te nd ed.by the aut hor . Second, in f e r e nc e s connect the explic i t eve nts wi t h th e events which ar e not explicit l y tre ated by the author, but ratherleft unde rstood or implicit. (p. 9)
As chi l d r e nre a d, the text prov idesthe basic foundationby
which they constr uct their interp re':atlons01what the te xt means. The textisno more tha n a group of sep a r a t e ....ords and sentencesi tthe bpI led relationships arenotres alve e, In ot h e r words , readershave notcomprehpnded.
The following se c tio n discusses young readers in the co n t e xt of vhat they are and are not doinq inins t a nc e s where lDaking inf e r e nc e s Is necessary in orderto understand text.
Inferr ing andYf,.ung Children
You ng children are eapee te of JIlaki ng in feren c e s about their surro undings (Hans en, 19818), and In their daily ac tivi t i e s (Hansen and Hubbard, 1984). Indeed, childrenmake ma ny inferencesabout the ,",arIdaround thempri or toentering sch ool (McIntosh, 1985). Why, then,arechil dren re porte d to experi en ce ditticul ty in ::fla ki ng infere nc e s whe n the y reading?
Rea ding rese a rch gi ves: a variety at reason s fo r the suspect e dl;\::kofin f e r enc e-mak ing among youngreaders. Bas e d on the scope and sequ encecharts of basal readers, inf e rr inq
16 isnot introduceduntil fifth or sixth qr-ede . it is considered to be ahigh level think ingskill,teach ersdo not ask children in the ea rl y gra des to make infer ences because theta s k is considere d to be too dif ficultfor them (McIn tosh, 1965). While in f eren tial compr e h ension may require a much deeper though t proc ess than does literal comprehension , children will be un ab le to answer either literal or inferential questionsi fthe textis toodif f icu lt forthe m.
Thisshoul d not implytha t theyar e unabl e toma ke infe rences but that they can not mak e them....ith that particu l a r text because it is beyond their levelof compr ehension. However.
when the text is at the ins t ruc tional lev el ofthe re a de r , bo t h average and poor reade r s are abl e to ma ke in f e r e nc e s (Ma l ic ky&schienbein , 1981).
A stud y by All en (198 5) seems to corro bo rate the con clus ionby Mali c kyandSch i enbe in . All e n inve st iga t e dth e abi lity of child r e n in gr ad e s one, two and three to make infe re nc es on st o ri e s that were self-dicta ted, peer - d ictat ed and wri t te nbyadults. Basedonfr e e and probed re c all s one ofthe findi ngsshowed thatthe chil d r e n in all thre egr a de s demonst ra t e d equ a l abil ity to make infe rences on the i r own stor ies. Fewe r in f e re nc e s were ma de on peers' sto r ieswh ile the leas t nul'llber we re made on adult-authored st o r i e s. Undo ubt e dl y , ba ck ground kn OWl e d ge of a st o ry wo uld be mos t re l e van t for itschild-author. While cohe r en c e and structure of the pee r -dic t a t e d st o r i e s may be somewhat la Ck i ng , the
17 actual tex t would likelybeclo s er tothe instructionallevel of the peer groupthan the text of those storieswritten by ad u lt s. Tha t is, eachchildwouldbe morecompetentwit h the lan guag e of the sto ries dictated by themsel ves and the ir peer s.
Children are taught to learn textual in f o na at i o n by rememberi ng it , inst e ad of bei ng taught to relate it to some thi ng the y know (Ha ns en & Pear s o n , 1983). By de mons trati ng the 'newto known ' relationsh ip, you ngchildren can also improve their in f e r e nti a l comprehension. Hanse n' s researchwith secondgr aders of averageabilitysupportsth is premise(Ha nsen1981a,1981b) . Anins t ruc t i ona l strategywas used to demonstrate how a reader's own relevant lif e experience s cou l d help hi m or herunde rs t an d a story. The strategy inclUded discuss i ng the top i c, discussing the child r e n ' s relevantexperiences, questioningby the teacher, and mak.i ng pred ictions. The questions ce nt e red around impor t a nt story events and were phrasedin the form of "Hhat doyou do when .•.IIand "What doyou think(t h e character) will do?" Children's respective re s p ons e s were written on strips ot grey pa p e r representing the brain and on orange strips representing new knowledge. At each session, the reason be h ind the strategy ot relat ing ne w knowledge to wha t was known was reviewed. weavingthe 'knot'lledge' and the 'brain' strips tog e t h e r was the follow-up ac t i vit y - - a concrete tcp r ese nt atic:l.otthe interringprocess. This instructional
18 strat e gy improve d no t only inferential comp r e h e nsio n but l i teral comprehe nsionas welL
The new-to- knowns.t rategywas alsoexten de dto include goodandpoor fou r t h grade re a d e r s (Hansen &Pears o n , 1983).
Theresult sshowedthat on inf e r e nt i a l questionspoorre aders benefited from. the ins t ruc tio na lme thod butitdid not aff e c t the pe rform a n c e of goo d readers on th ose questi o n s. In Han s e n ' s (1 98 1a & 198 1b ) and Hansen and Pearson' s (1983)
studie s , the readers' in ferent i al comprehen s i on improved be c ause they ha dbe e nins t r uc t e d to seethe connect ionbetw e e n the textinformat ionand their own background knowledge. A test at the end of the Hanse n (1 9 8 1 a ) study indi ca ted tha t connectingthe 'new to known' st r a t e g y was not transferre dto sil en t, ind e pe nd e nt reading of fami liar and unfamil i ar material.
Ho wev e r, thesi l en t , independentreadingwas an unusua l activity for these average second graders (Hansen 198 1a ). Would the posttest results have been different had silent independentreading been a regular part of these childrenI5 dailyreading classes? conversely ,in the Hansen and Pearson study (1983) with grade fours, posttest results on a common story showed thaton inferential questionsboth good and poor readers performed well. In addition , the performance of the experimental group of poor readers was equivalent to that of the good readers in the control group. It appears that the instructional strategy of quest ioning,discussingand weaving
19 may be more beneficial for poorer readers. There vas also evidenceofth e strategybeingtransferredinth e independent re ad i ngof this older group .
The s e concl usions are corroborated by Reutzel and Hollingworth's experiment (1988) in Which a ge n e r at i v e- reciprocal infe rence pr oc ed u r e (GRI P ) was used with third graders to teach in fer e n c e-ma k i ng. The procedure inclUded explaining how inferring wou ld be helpful during reading, highlighting and then list i n g key vo cab u l a r y on teacher- designatedand studen t -designatedpassagesand finally pl ayi ng aGRIPboard game. Incomparisonwith the ba sal and control groups,the exper-Lment.aL groupsi gn ifi c an t l y outperformedthe other two on a varie ty of inferen tia l tas k s. Th e s e third graders were active parti c ipa nts in the process of making inferences; they ware active ly involved in organizing and relat ing new information to tha t ....hich was already kno....n (Reutzel&Hol l in g s wor th , 19 8 8). This part iCU la r proced u re focusedthere edecs' atte ntio n and thi nk i n gon t....oimportant aspects of infer encegenerati ~n--theimpo r ta nceof connecting backgroundknOWledge to tex t info rma tio n and the ne ed to be sen sitive to text clu essuch as voca bu l ary.
It seemsappare n t that ifchildrenare not made aware of th e conn ection be twee n backgrou n d kn o wl e dg e and tex t in format ion, they wil l not make infere nces in readin g as spont aneo usly as they do inoth eractiv iti es. How ca n the ybe mad e eve r-e of this co nnect i on and thus inc r eas e their
20 performance on in f e r e n t i a l tasks? The ane....erseems toire in comprehensioninstruction. This be g s the question: What do we teach yo u n g readers that wi l l en a b l eth e m tobe successful inference-makers : comprehension instructionmust demonstrate what inferences are, why they are necessary and helpful in understandingwhat is re a d, and how they canbe made.
In order to know what inferencestrategiesto teach ,the y must beide nt i f ied . Through the examination of thein f e r e nc es of grade three readers and identification of the strateg ie s theyus e in making thoseinferences ,the presentstudywill increase our understanding of how young childrencomprehend text.
In order to determinewhat those inferences and inferenc e strategies ar e, each mus t be defined in terms of thi s investigation. The definitions of inference and inference strategy areaddressed in the following section.
Defining Inferring and Inference Strategy Many reading researchers agre ethat making an inference involves using text information and information inthe head (Allen, 1985; Beck, 1989; Hansen, 19 B1a, 1981b: Moore and Kirby, 1988; Phillips, 1986, 1988, 1989a). Making an inference is a cognitive process which involves the construction of meaning (Be c k , 1989t Phillips, 1987, 1988 ). The textinformationand backgroundknowledgeare integrated, organized , and evaluated by the reader resulting in a plausible int e rpre t a t i o n of the mea ningof the te xt. These
2l inte.·pretation s ar e comp l e t e and consis t en t wi th both tt'.e reader'5 bac kground kno wl ed g e and the te xt int o I1llat i on (Ph illips, 1987,198 8 ' .
Be cau s e inte r ri ng is such an int eg r al co mponent of re a di ngcomp r e ~en si on,the defin i t i onofinf e r e nc e1scl o s e ly connectedto thedefinitionofco mpr ehen sion . Inthis study, Phill ips' definiti o n of inference is ado p ted (1987, 1988, 198 9a). Inf e r e nc eisdef i ne d as: Aninterpretationof text that is constructed from and consiste nt with the text inform ation and background knowledge. This int e rp retation resultsfromeithe r therea de rs ' int e g r a t i ngtextinf o rma t i o n withtheirbackgroundknowle dge or incorporating tex 't cues in ordertounde r s t a nd theimplici t meaningor the text.
Carr, Dewi t z andPatberg (1989) doUnest r ate gy as the way in which the reader co nstructs answers from textual informa t ionand prior knowl e dge. Co l li ns, Br o wn and Larkin (19801define st r a t e qiesas "•••the ways thatskilledreaders deal withthe difficultiestha t arise in comprehension•• • " (p . 385) as they revisemodels forunderstandinqtext. St r a teq i e s are plans that readersus ewh i ch are flexible and ada pta b l e dependi n gon the situatio n (Ouffy 'Roehler , 1987) and are the pu r po s e f ulmeansofcompr ehend inqte xt (Olshavs ky ,1976-1977). Ac c ordinqtoPhillip!!.(19 8 B) "The term~was se l e c ted to labe l aplanor te Chniqueused byrea ders to r ach iev i nqan int erpr e t ation ind ep en de nt ot the cor rectne s s at the interp ntation" [p, 208).
Wha t readersdo in thei r attemptsto const ruct mea ninq co ul d be labeled a stra tegy, L,e. a st ra t eg y has be e n used when thereader has been ableto solve a prob l em or overcome a diff iculty that was interfering withthe me a ning of the tex t. In th isstudy , anin f e r e nc e strategy is de f inedas: A pla n, or te ch n i queus e d by the readerto makean inf erenc e.
Bo th definit ionsart!derived from Phill ips (1987 , 1988,1989a) and have been adoptedfor thisstudy primaril ybecause th is investiga tion is for the most part a replication of the Ph il lip s ' 1988 work with sixth graders. While other defin i tio nsof infe r en c e and inferen ce st r a t e qy are equallyas va l i d for tho s e partic ul arstudiesfor whichthey were used, Phillips' de f i ni t i o ns were more comprehensive for thi s investigationof grade three readers.
Phillips' definition of inference emphasizes the ne c e s s i ty ofmesh i ng text informationand background knowledqe to decide upon an interpretation. Itis possible thatyo ung readers, when making in f e r e nc e s , may emphasize one or the other, Le. they maybase their interpretations primarily on either text infor1llation or baCkground knOWledge instead of int e g r a t i ng the two. However, with Phillips' defini t ion , an in f e r e nc e is judge d to have been made when the reader's interpretation is based on connectingthe new and. the known-- integrating text infonaationan d backgroundknowledge.
The inferencest r a t e gy de:tinit.1on usedbyPhillips takes into accountwhatever manner of plan or action that readers
23 ma y take 1n intet1lret i ng text regardless of whetheror not they successfu llydec ide onthe mos t plausibl e int e rp r "'t a tion.
Re ad e r s and especia ll y younqre a de r sma y intact use anumber of strateg ies "'ith va ry ing degrees of succe s s . Th i s def ini t ion allowstor theid e nti ficationof any planor act i o n use d as the reade rattemp::.s to se t tleupo nanint e rp retatio n regardlessof whe therthe atte mpt WAS successful or not.
Major Stud ies on Infe r e nc e Strategi e s The st u dies by Collins, Brown and Lar k i n (1980) and Phill i ps (1 988 )are maj o r studies on Inre e e nc e strat egie s in underst a ndingtext. Whileboth provide the basis for this st ud y , Ph ill ips'inve stiga t ion ot the infe r enc e strategi e sof grade six re a ders provides the impetus . A review of each stud y is neces s a ry becaus e there will like l y be some simil ari t i es and d1!fer enc e s among th e inf e r ence strategie s us ed by adult and gr ad e six reade rs and the infe rence strategies used by the grade three reade rs inv e s tigated in this st ud y. Th e inve s tiga t o r ado p ts th e analys is of the Collins, Brown and Larkin(198 0) stud y pr e sent e d in Ph il lip s (1988 )as the bes t ana lysis ofthei r work and her descript i on follows (pp. 1IJ5- 197).
Accordi ng to the Coll ins, Brown and Larkin study with adults in 1980, text is understood using a progressive- refinement th(,ory. Thatis, the reader'sinitial model of the te xt is progressivel y revised and evaluated until he or she eve nt ua lly converges on amod e l that best t'lts the text. Each
revisedmodel oftextans we r e d some of the questions raisedon the text informationthus leadingto a sUbsequentmod e l tha.t wa s morerefined butthatal so limited thepo s sib il i t i e sfor ans we r s to quest ions that remained. To determine ho w these mod e l s were constructedandrevised ,adultSUb j e c t s, who were skilled readers, were given texts that 'Were diffi cult to unders tand . As the SUbjects attempted toun d e r s t a nd the se te xts , the y 'Were askedhow they processedthe text. Thes e thi nki ngprotoco ls were recorded.
Th e resultsof the Coll in ' set211. (19 8 0 )study showtha t the se skil l e d readersused ei g h t prob lem-sol vingstrategies in order tode t e rmi n e the meaningof the texts. These strateg ies were used to revise and refine different models unt il the readers fi n all yconvergedonthemod e l that seemedto bestfit the text. These problem-solving strategies which the authors compa r e d to the strategies used by people as they att.empt to solve crossword puzzles are as follows:
1, ~- generating a new value for a va r ia b l e sl o t when the original value leadstoco n flic t , Le.,thinkof another word for that variable slot.
2. questionina a default interpretation - trying a new interpretation of the va l u e because the original interpretatio nis questioned When it does not enable the reader to progress in his or her understanding of the text.
25 3. ~a directconf lict- occurring when the slot value just assiqnedco nf l i c t s withnew information, Le., the reader cannot find support for a particula r int e rp r e t a tio n that has just been made.
4. questioning anindirectco n n ic t - occurring when there is a conflictbetween an interpretation pre v iouslymade andDe w information,Le . , the reader cannot find support for a bindingthat hasbeen made previously. 5. De a r shifting 9' fgcus - moving to another De w
question closelyrelated to one the reader is unable to solve.
6. distant shifting of focus - moving to another question which is distantly related to the one the reader is unable to solve but will open up ot.ne r- options.
7. cas e analysis - trying several in t e rp r e t a t i o ns to see which one tits best with other facets of the text. a. most likely case assignment - decidinq on the most
plausible interpretation from the several models considered.
TheCo ll i n s ' et a1. (1980) study also concluded from the ve r ba l reports that these skilled readers applied tests on a compl e x evaluationprocess to determine the plausibility of each text model they constructed. These tests were:
26 1. th e pla u sib il i t y of the assumptionsan dconsequen c e s of
~- par t s of the model areevaluated aga i ns t the readers' ownbacKground knOWledge.
2. .t.hsJ.grnpleteness of the model- pa r t s of the acde L are ev al uated againsttex t information.
J. theinterconnect ednessofthe mod e l - part softhemo d e l ar eevaluatedwith respect to howthey fitt04a t h er with backgro:..md knowledge andte x t informat.lun.
4. the match of the model to the te xt - assumptions and
consequence s ofthe mode l arewe i g he d interms of how well th e y ma t c hparticul araspects of thetext . Th e collins, Brown and Larkin th eo ry of tex t Ilnde rs tand i ng is one of progre ssive re f ine ment inwhich th e reader , uti lizing several problem- s ol v i ng strategies, pr ogre ss es from an initial in t e r p re tatio n of a text to a refine d mod e l which is more plaus ibl e (Phi llips , 19 88 , pp.
195 -1 97 ).
Th e Phillips (19 88 ) stUdy ex tended the wo rk of col li ns, Brown and Larkin (1980) to inve s t iga t e the infe r e nce st ra t e g ies used byhighandlowabili tyreaders in gradesix asthe y at tempt edto comp r ehend famil iaran d unfa mil i ar texts. Pr ofic iencyor reading ability wasdeter'lllined bythere a de r s ' sco r e s on the voc a b u l a ry and Comprehensionsubtests of the Ca nad ia nTe s t s of BasicSkills(CTBS). Subjectswere fromtwo different Canadian urbanareas--oneon the prairies and one near these a. Th r e e pas sageswith cor res po n d inq inferenceand
27 clarification qu ea uLon a were cc np c a e d by Phillips on three events indi genousto each area (f o r a total of six passages) and were the tex t ma t eri a l for the investig ation . Sixth gradersin eachci t y werediv idedrandomlyint o two groupsof hig h and t ....o groups of lo w prot'iciency. Each group read ei the r the familiaror the unfamiliar text, (Le . , one high- proficiencygroup read the fami liartextswhile theother high proficiency group read the unfam..i.liar text). The same procedure vas foll owed withthe low proficiencygroups. In individ ua l meetings, readers were asked to expressve r ba lly wha t theywere thinking as they re a d each text episode. The inference and clarification questions vere asked if the readers did not report making an inference. Audiotapes of thesesessions werema d e and later transcribed.
Ph il lips ' (1988) stUdy identified ten interence st ra t eg i es usedbythesesix t h grade readersand are presented
f"'llows :
1. nb..1.nsl1.ng -the reader immediately substitutes another interpretation upon realizing that the first int e rp r e t a t i on conflicts with text information.
2. gusstioning a defaultint,rpretatloD and/or a direct or indirect connlet - the reader qu,stions a previous interpretation when he or she realizes that subsequent information conflicts withit.
J. sll.!tt:ing of foc us ~ the rea der as ks ot h e r relatedquesti ons tha t ha d notbeen conside red prev i ouslywhenheor sh"!:realizes that hisor her in i tialque s t i onca nno t bere s o lve dwi t hi n that reader'5 interpr e t a tio n.
4. analyzi ng alternat.i ves - the reader does not decide on anyon einterpretationbut wi ll hold a numberof possible intl!rpretations tentative untilmo r e inforlllationbeco mesavailable.
5. assig n i ng an alt erna t e case - the reader temporarily dig r ess e s from the cur r e nt interpretationwhen in f o rma tio n in the text does no t fi t or SUbsequent information doe s not prov idea solution.
6. confirm ingan imme d i a t e prior int e rp re t a ti on - the reader confi rmsanint erpr e t a t i o n based on th e infornlatlon itlUlled latelyfollowing it. 7. confirming non-immgdiat e p7.=...i.2J::
interpretation the reader considers different intgrpretations but confirms an ea r l i e r one on th e basis of subsequent text information.
8. assum ing transforming
attempts to confirm. an interpretation despite inconsistencies between the interpretation and
2 .
the text. In doing so, nev text data is misconstrued; the default int e r pre t ati on is assumedor held tobe the text model.
9. withhold ing Of reite rat ing informatio n - th e reader re pe a t s an interpretation made before or does not respond to quest i o n s requesting in t'o nn a t i on .
10 . ~thizi ngwith the experiencesof others - thereaderid e ntifi e s pe rsonallywiththe text si t uat i o n and projectshimself or herselfinto it without any loss of story fo cu s or the int r odu c t i on of inc onsis t enc i e s w;'th either thereedeevs interpre tatio nsorwithth e te xt .
(Phillips, 198 8, pp • 202-206) Similarities and differences we r e found between the strategies usedbyadultsand thos e usedby the young grade six readers. The Phil lips ' (1988) work found that while rebinding (s t r a t e gy 1) was the same for bothgroups and the first seven adu l t st rateg iescorrespon ded in some ways with the first four you ng reade r s ' stra t e gies , there was a major differe nce. That diff e re nc e was th a t four of the young readers' strategies were not foun d in the adult group, indicatingthatthese strategies had be co meautomat i c for the adults. In othe r words, the adults settled on the lIlos't plausible text in t erpr etation much soone r than the young readers . The youn g read e rs were more de l i berate in thei r
30 procedure to get to th ispoint andmight go througha nllillbe r of strategies beteo'<e finallydecidingon an int e r p r e ta tio n that was the most plausibleand consistent with the text.
The patterninwhichthe you nggrade six readers used the ten inf e r en c e st r a t eg i e s id e n t i f i e d in this stud y was complicated. All readers us ed rebinding and question i ng defaults (s t r a t e gi es 1 and 2) equally, i.e., they wo u l d substitute another interpretationimmediatelyupon realiz i ng that th g first intarp n tationconflictedwi ththe text and would question that interpretatio n if subsequent te xt information conflicted withit. An a l yz i ng alternati ve s and co n f i rmi n g immediat ely (strategies 4 and 6) were us e d more frequentlythan any other strategiesbyall readers. Thatis, the gr a d e I.:.i x readers would hold a number of possi bl e interpretationstentative lyuntil they had more informati on rather than sett.i.ing on one par ticul arint e rpre t a t i on. They wereal s oju s t as likely toco n f i rm anint e rpre ta ti o non the basis of infornationimmediatelyfollowing it. Based on the dif f e r e n t strategie s used by re a ders of both high and low pro f ic i e n cy using familiar and unfami liartexts , It • ••there was nocl e a r - cu t connectionbetween baCkground knowledge, re a di ng proficiency ,and st rategyuse. Strategyuse was determined by an interact ionbe t we e n proficiency andba ckground kncwLedqe but not byeitheraLc ne" (Phillips, 1988, pp. 216-217) . In other words, the gr a de six study indicated tha t reading
Jl ability and bac~(<J round knov kedqe dete rm ined what inf e re nc e strat e gieswe r eus e dbythe young reade rs.
ThePh i ll i ps (1988) st ud y raised quest ions that motivated the presen t st ud y. 00 read ersat the gr ad e threele v e l and of differen t levels of pr o f ic i en c yus e the same strategi esor diffe r en t stra tegies as th e grade six groups to understa nd text? Wha t infe rencestra tegi e s ar e used morefreque nt l y by ski lled rea de r s? by unskill ed reade r s? Why do ski ll ed rea ders ' infe r e nc est r a teg i e s prove tobe more suc cess f ul in comprehending tex t than those str a tegies used by le s s pro f i c i e nt re ad e rs?
The prese nt invest iga ti onIoIill ide ntif y th e infe re nc e strategi e s ergr a de thre e readers, wlll show whe t he r or not the re is arelati o ns hipbetween the irread i ng prOfi c i e nc y and theinfere nc e st rategies the yused,andwillprov idethe basis for compa riso nwit h thegradesix st r a teg i esof the Phill ips (1988) st Udy.
Read i ng Pr o f i ciency andIn ferll!nces
profici e n cy or skil l in reading is proba b l y the most obvious fac to r that di st i ngu ishes one group of readers from anotherat a'y age level. Studie s on readingcomprehensi on cont i nue tosh ow ways in whi c h very proficient readers differ fromthose who are lessprofic i e nt . Proficient reader sappear to use th eir strengths as a reader and a 1anguage us e r effecti vel y ; whereas, ot h e r readers are not confidentabout theirreading or sure of theirpurposefor reading (ccceaen&
J2 Burke, 1980). So, is itsometh ingth atreade r sare doing or ar e no t doing tha t mak es them proficie nt ? It ....ould seem likely that even poorreaders have some st r engths. Is their lowpr oficiency the re s u l t of their .is under s t and l nqof What read ing is all abo u t or dueto thedif fi c ul t y ofthema t erials theyareusing?
withregard toin fe r e nti alcompr ehens i on,betterrea de r s make more quality in f ere n c e s (Malick y , sctden cet n , 1981, Tierne y , Bridge'Cera, 1978-79). Again. researchersgi ve a varietyof reasons whyreadersI pr o fi c ienc y accountsfor th e quantity andqual i ty of the inferences made. All e n (198 5 ) conclud edthat becausethemo r e capable re a d erswereth e more skilled decoderstheywer e bet t er able toma ke use of more textual cue stoma ke inferences. Othe r reasonsaresummar iz e d as fol lo....s, Good read e r s po s s e s s grea t e r lIIe ta coqni tive awa r e n e s s (Bri d ge ' Tie r ney,19 811, us eflo r e reasoningskil l s to int eg r a t e text information with backgro und knowledge (Da vey, 19 8 9)I use better strateg ies (Da v e y , 1989; Duf f y ' Roehler,19871,are betterand more successfu lpro blem-solvers (Ho lme s, 1983), arediffer entiated fr o m poor reade rsby the quality of th e ir re a s o n i n g and thinking (Phillip s ' Norris, 198 7 ) and fina ll y are ab l e to orga nize and syn t h e s iz e informati onbe c a us e the yaremo reawareof theor g a n izationof th e tex t (Wilson, 19 7 9 ).
Converse ly, there is alsoresearchevidenc e to sho wtha t poor readersmake fewe r infe rences tha n good re a d ersandmake
inferences of an inferio r quality. Poor re a d e rs lack the necessary inferential compre he ns ion ins t r uc tio n (Hansen &
Hubb a r d, 1984) ,are mislabeledbecaus etheyareus i ng mat e rial beyond the ir reading le v el (Ho l me s, 1983: Mal i c ky &
schienbein, 19B1), lack the emphasis on meani ng in their reading programs (Ma l i c ky & Schienbein, 1981) and lackthe abi l ityto focus withoutguidance (MCIntos h , 1985). Reade rs will not comprehendifthey areaskedto interpret textbeyond their instructionallevel.
"Pr o fic i e nt readers exploit to the full e st their own knowledge, experienceand language whichtheybringtothoir read ingtohe l pthe m (jetappr o p ria te purposesas theyread..."
(Good man & Burke , 1980, p, 45). I t appears tha t less proficient readers are unable to use thei r stre ngt hs as readers or are unaware that they have any. Ph ill i ps (1987) contends that when reading profi c ienc y is low , suf f i cient backg round knOWledge will not make any dif f erence to perfo rman c e. '", ••It see ms then,thatreadi ngpr o ficienc y is a ne cessa rycondi tio n for ove r a ll performance while backg r ound knOWl ed ge is not "(p, 17 ).
Be c au s e thepri marypurpose ofrea ding isto con s truct meaning, th e goal of compre h e nsio ninstructio n is to prod uc e bette r reade rs . In ord e r to get readers to become mo r e effe c tive and more eff icientecaprebeneees , it is necessary to asc e rta i n what they are doing and / or are no t doing th at promo t escompre hensio n. Armbruster and Brown (198 4 ) maintai n
·..that if less suc c e s s f u l st ude nts can be made awa r eor (a) thedi f fe ringdema nd s of a variety of test s to which their knowl e dge may be put, (b) simp l e rules of text construction, :c) the role of theirch a r a c t erist i c s , and (d ) basicstrateg ies for readi ng and remembering, they ca nnot hel p but be c ome more ef f e c t ive le arners. (p. 280)
usi ng textual materials at their lev e l of co mpe tenc y , comp r e he n si on instruction must be desig ned tocons ide r the pro fic i e nc y leve l s of all readers. Thus, readingwill likel y bec o me acha ll e ngingand thoughtfulco ns t ruc tion ofmeani ng.
However , readingcompetence is developmental in nature. the de v e l o pme nt a l nature of inferentialab il i t y is the SUbject of the next sec tion .
DevelopmentalInferential Comprehension Much of the literatu re on d.... elopmental infere ntial comprehension snows that the ability to construct impli ed re l a t i o ns h i ps seems to develop with age. Because of this pr e v a iling evidence , basal reading programs and clas s ro om instruction have not includedor empha sized the inferential skills in the reading instruction of primary children. There is conflictingevidence on whetheror not young readersca n integrate text cues in order to generate inferences. There ar e reasonsto believe that both thequantityand quality of inferences increases and improves, and that the making or inferences will eventually become more automatic as the reader
35 matures. rncrcese s in....orld knc....ledqe ardmemoryc<Jpacity, developing la ngua ge expe rie nce, awareness of ho ....texts ar e writtenand abili t y to inte grate te xt cue s ar e some of the reasons suggested tor improved perfo rma nce on infe r en tial tasks.
Muc n of the de ve lopmenta l resea rch ha s foc used on the ability to make inf e r e nc es in orde r to supply impo rtant missing in forma t ion in a te xt (Le. , filling empty slo t s ) . rne re sul t sof st udiesbyPa risandLinda uer (19 76), Parisand Upt o n (197 6) and Par is, Lind a u e r andCox (1977) sug g e s t th a t youn g children's abil ity tocomprehendand remeaae r implicit text cues in sen t enc e s , inf e r me a ning f ul relation ships in stor ies and infe r ccne e qc en c eefr om sentenc es respect i vel y.
increases ....ith age. Moreo ver , they concluded tha t th is incre a se inabil i ty may notbe due toan inc r e asein memo ry ca pa c i ty but sug geste d tha t older chi l dr e n may be mo re de li be r a t eintheirplanstoremember inf orm a tio n than young er child r en . However ,it cannotbe con cludedthat youngchildren can no t infer because they havenotremembered-- i nferri ngand reme mberi ng are not synonymous .
John son and Smith (19 8 1) examined factors that mi g ht limi tthirdand fifth grade chi ldren'sinference~maki.ngwhen reading to understand a lengthy narrative. While both age groups ha d the basic competence to ma k e an inference, the youn g e r group ma de fewer inferences when the sentences cont a i ni ng the premise information were separated by
, .
int e rv ening t.ext ,eve nthough that informatio n was ava ilab le in memory. Johnso nand Sll ith sugqested th at you ng children areno t as likelyto int e g rate sep ara t epieces ofinform ation tocons t ruc t an inferen c ebu t will be more suc cess f ul when tha t information islocated inad j a CQnt sentences or with i n the same story paragraph. They co nc luded tha t a majo r distinction betwee nthe youn g e r and older readers wa s the la t t e r 's ability to int e g r a t e me a n ing-CuI cue s to ge ner at e inf e r e n ce s req a rdle s s of their loc at i on in the story. It is possible that the lengthof th estory (17 00 words) and the number of que stionsfor thefiftee npremisesandinf erences in thenarra tivemayhave taxe d the younger readersbeyond the ir atten tiveness.
Ackerma n (1988) and Badzi nsld (19 8 9), "'hile drawi nq si mi lar conclusio ns as other researc hers , have also found sOlllewhat diffe r i ng results. Ackerman (1988) question ed whetheror notdevelopmental ditterences in making certain kind s ofinfe r e nc eswere due toin terenceability. Heseetlls toconcurwithJoh nso n and Smith(1 9 8 1 1inhypothesizingthat childre n ma ke different kinds of inferences in di ffe r e nt situations; whetheror not theyma k e inferences dependsupon the context ualin f o rma t i o n and howtha t intorma tionmaycue or constrain theparti cu l arinferenc e.
The objectivesofAckerman' sre s ea r chweretoinves t igate ch ildre n 'sde pe nd en ce onconte xtual inform a tio nand dete rm i ne how effici e ntlythC"';'"nrc reeeIen "'asus edand int eg rated to
37 changeormodify inferences. The participants were first and fourth graders and college studentswho answeredquestions on fifteensix-sentencestoriesaocut; daily activities. It ....as found that the young first graderswe r ese nsitive to ea ch source of inf onnat io nanddid integ r ate the m,that the younger reader sunderstoo dand made sen seof the storybut not inthe same waythatthe adu l t re a d e r s di d, andonce the younger reade r shad settledon arelationship, the y wo uld no t change or modify the in fere nce ev e n if succeeding cues did not support it. Ack erman sug ges t s thatthedi ff erences may be due not to inferent ial ability alon e or to 't.he ability to integrate text ual information , but "In s tead the differe n c es may have to dowith concept knowledgeandconc ept prominence in the lis tener'sorganizatio nand representa tionof a story"
(Ac kennan, 198B, p. 144 1 ). Ev e n though the gener a l knOWledge ofthese young reade rs was increasing , their knowl edge of simple dailyact ivities suc h as swiJhl'l\ingor dryin g clothe s woul d not have beenas ext ensive as tha t oftheolde r child r e n andad ults.
Un like many ofthe other devel op menta l stU dies, Badzinski (1989) inves tiga t ed how lin guis t i c va ria ti ons of the te xt would influenceinfer e n t ia l proce ss i ng. Because verbs often imply importanttext informati on , their inten sity wasva rie d intwo vers i on s offive cons t ructe d short chil d re n ' s stor i es.
sto r i e s wi t h mo r e forceful ve r bs (e.g. , cr as he d, grab b ed, stari n g) were label e d hiqh- intensit y stories, while those
JB using less forceful oragg re s sive verbs (e g., fell,took, looking)were labeledlow-intensitystories . It waspr edi c t e d that the like lihoodand speedof in f e r enti a l processil'l~ for thehigh-intensitystorieswould be greaterthanfo r the 10w- intensitystories.
Two experiments usingthesame storiesand accompanyIng setsof questions were carriedout- -onewith collegestudents end the other withchildren in kindergarten. grades two and four . For childrenand adul tsthe resultsof bothexperimen t s demonstratedthatinf e r e nc es were made more readily, and the target inferenceswere more likely to be constructed during re ca l l on the high-intensitythan on the low-intensity te x t s. The speed of inferential processingdidnot di ffe r for ei ther group nor was the r e any clear age-related diffe rences In children 's abU.i ty to make inf ere nc e s ....he n age -re la ted abiliti es such as vocabulary and genera l kncwLedqe were controlled .
Unlike the find i ngsof other studies (Pa ri s ' Li nda u e r, 1976; Paris &Lin daue r &Co x,1977 : Pari s&Upton, 1976 ), the findings of the Badzi nski stUdy indi cate tha t the eec eer recal l performanceof the olderchild renmaybe accounted fo r by ag e -re lated skills other tha n inf e r en tia l ab il i t i e s. Becaus e of thei r la n guage deve l opmen t , old er readers and adults ....ere mor e se ns i t i ve tochan g es insto ry verbswhilethe youngeroneswho hada les swe ll-de v e lopedlangua ge base would have be en probablyunaware ofthe imp lic:at i o ns of the verb
' 9
ch a nges. Tha t is , it would appea r that limitedcon ce pt ual knowledg e wou ld haveee e e themle s s sensit iv eto the impli ed me aning of the stronger verb (onns in thos e cons t ru cted st ories than the older reade rs. consequentl y, fewer inf e r ence s were ma de by the younger grou p. Anint ere sting que s tion is ..het he ror not change s inthe sUbject nou ns of storieswouldresult in similar fl n::Hng s as the cha nge s in sto ry ver b s! Because of the apparent inUue nce of ve r b changes , onecouldgener aliz e that it'the SUb j e c t nouns 0:
stories werevar i e d accordingtoin te ns i t y , younger children woul dal s o make fewer infer encesth a n oldergroup sof re aders be c a us e of limi t il!dconcept development ra the r than lack of infe rential abil ity.
Inthe stud ies rev ieweda numberol reasons have been sug g e s t ed as to "'hyyounge r ch ildrunco nstruc t inf ere nc e s dif f e r en tly fro m olde r chd Ldz-en and ..dults . Most of the st udies sho.. evide ncethat evenve ryyoun gchil d renhav e the abilityto ma ke infer ences and that ab i l i ty in c r e ases with age. Ba d z i ns lci (198 9) indicated that a cha nge in the intensity ofst ory verbs, not an increase in ability, was ind i cative of inc reased inferent i al perf o rm a nce. Johnsonand Smit h (198 1) concl uded that the in lot'lll ation- pro c essing comp l e xity of th e taskcaused youngerchild re n to make fewe r accept able infe rencesthan ol derchildren andadults becau s e the y we r e unab le to int e g r a te diltere n t sou r c es of text informatio n.
This findingconflicts with that of Ackerman (1988) and Schmidtand Paris (1983) ...ho concludedthat young children can in fact integrate a number of cues and make use of contextual support to confit1tl an inference. Theinc r e a s e incue number and cue type, not the location of the cues, also increases performance (pa r i s &.Lindauer, 1976). Young children's low performance on inferentialtasks was notdue toina bil i t y to recall text in tot1tlationbecause they were able to imitate the actions of the sentences (Pa r i s ' Lindauer , 1976) and generate Ctstory(Pa r i s , Lindauer' Cox,1977) indicating thatthe y had inferred the relationships from the sentences.
Some developmental differences have been suggested to explain why youngerchildren make fewer inferences and make inferences of an interior quality. The ir general kncwledq e and language development are not as organized or as well- developed as those of older children and adults; cl u e integration may vary the inferences made in different situations; and youngreadersaremore dependenton contextual support thanolder groups.
In the writer's investigationofthe inferencestrategies of grade three re ade r s , it is possible that differen ces similar to those just specified will be displayed in varying degrees by those re aders. In a heterogeneous class, it is very likelythat students of comparableagewilldiffer trom each othe r in: Genera l knOWledge, confidence with la ng ua ge (how to use itand how it works) and in their understandi ng
"
th at read!nq is construc ti ng mean ing not just iden t i f y i ng words. To de c id e whether or not these stude nt s can make infe r en ces, thisinvestig a t i on willbe guidedby conditions set do....n by Phil l i ps (198 9a) - -tha t the abil i ty to mak e infer e nc es isinfluenced by there a de r , thetextand the ta s k .
CHAPTER 3
THEO RE T ICALFRAMEWORKANDMET HODOLOGY
The purpos e of the pre se nt study was to ide ntify the inference st ra tegi esuse dby a select group of grade thr ee readers and to dete rmin e whet he r or no t th ere wa s a relat i on ship between read i ngabi lity and strategyus e. The theo r etica l fr a me work for thestud y wa s partia ll y pro videdin the precedi ng chapte r whereinfe r ringwas defined and its rol e in reading comp rehe ns i on was discussed. The the o r e t i c a l framework for thQ stud y is integ r a ted in th i s chi\ptQr. Methodol og i es ee ueenr y used in re ading process resea rch are reviewed and evalua t e d . A rat ionale for choos i ng the me thodolog y forthe pr esent study ispre s ented . Fi na ll y, the selectedmetho d o logy is de scribe d in det a i l and the sample, mate ria l s, proc edu re, codi ng, and ana l ysis of the dat a are outline d .
Re a d ing ProcessMethodol og ies
Re a d i ng comprehension is ave ry comp lexpr ocess Lnvc Iv i.nq ma nyatte nd a nt processes includi ng hypothesiz ing, predict i ng , synthes i z ing, monitoring, eva luat i ng, and inferr ing. It is with the latter proces s that thi s study is conc erned , specifically , theid e nti fic ation ofth e in f e r e nc estr a t e gi e s us e d by grad e three studentswhen readinga story .
Anumber of stUdies we r e rev iewed in order to decide whi ch methodology orcombina tio nofmethod o logies to use in or de r to best identifythein f e r e nc e strategies. Basedonthe
