Advertisement

Educational Psychology Review

, Volume 28, Issue 1, pp 1–22 | Cite as

Inference Instruction for Struggling Readers: a Synthesis of Intervention Research

  • Colby S. Hall
Review Article

Abstract

Skill in generating inferences predicts reading comprehension for students in the elementary and intermediate grades even after taking into account word reading, vocabulary knowledge, and cognitive ability (Cain et al., Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 671–81, 2004; Kendeou et al., Journal of Research in Reading, 31, 259–72, 2008; Oakhill and Cain, Scientific Studies of Reading, 16(2), 91–121, 2012; Oakhill et al., Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 443–468, 2003). While research shows that struggling readers are less likely than proficient readers to make inferences when reading text (Cain et al., Memory and Cognition, 29, 850–859, 2001; Oakhill, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 54, 31–39, 1984), struggling readers may also benefit more from inference instruction than do proficient readers (Hansen and Pearson, Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(6), 821–829, 1983; McGee and Johnson, Educational Psychology, 23(1), 49–59, 2003; Raphael and Pearson, American Educational Research Journal, 22(2), 217–235, 1985; Yuill and Oakhill, Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2, 33–45, 1988). This synthesis assessed (a) the effectiveness of inference instruction in improving reading outcomes for struggling readers and (b) the features of instructional interventions (e.g., duration, type of instruction) that were associated with improved outcomes. One single-case design and eight experimental group design studies were synthesized. Mean effect sizes for group design studies ranged from g = 0.72* to g = 1.85* for researcher-developed measures of inferential reading comprehension and from g = −.03 to g = 1.96* for standardized measures of reading comprehension. The percentage of non-overlapping data for the study that employed a single-case design was 100 % for all measures.

Keywords

Reading comprehension Inferences Background knowledge Learning disabilities Reading difficulties 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education, through Grant R305F100013 to The University of Texas at Austin as part of the Reading for Understanding Research Initiative. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute or the US Department of Education.

References

  1. Berkeley, S., Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2010). Reading comprehension instruction for students with learning disabilities, 1995–2006: a meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 31, 423–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bowyer-Crane, C., & Snowling, M. J. (2005). Assessing children’s inference generation: What do tests of reading comprehension measure? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 189–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cain, K. (2010). Reading development and difficulties. Chichester: BPS Blackwell.Google Scholar
  4. Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. V. (1999). Inference making and its relation to comprehension failure. Reading and Writing, 11, 489–503.Google Scholar
  5. Cain, K., Oakhill, J. V., & Bryant, P. E. (2004). Children’s reading comprehension ability: Concurrent prediction by working memory, verbal ability, and component skill. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 671–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carr, E. M., Dewitz, P., & Patberg, J. P. (1983). The effect of inference training on children’s comprehension of expository text. Journal of Reading Behavior, 15(3), 1–18.Google Scholar
  7. Carr, S. C., & Thompson, B. (1996). The effects of prior knowledge and schema activation strategies on the inferential reading comprehension of children with and without learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 19(1), 48–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common core state standards for English language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf.
  9. Cooper, H. (1998). Synthesizing research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Dewitz, P., Carr, E. M., & Patberg, J. P. (1987). Effects of inference training on comprehension and comprehension monitoring. Reading Research Quarterly, 22(1), 99–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Edmonds, M. S., Vaughn, S., Wexler, J., Reutebuch, C. K., Cable, A., Tackett, K. K., & Schnakenberg, J. W. (2009). A synthesis of reading interventions and effects on reading comprehension outcomes for older struggling readers. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 262–300. doi: 10.3102/0034654308325998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ezell, H. K., Kohler, F. W., Jarzynka, M., & Strain, P. S. (1992). Use of peer-assisted procedures to teach QAR reading comprehension strategies to third grade children. Education and Treatment of Children, 15, 205–227.Google Scholar
  13. Flynn, L. J., Zheng, X., & Swanson, H. L. (2012). Instructing struggling older readers: A selective meta-analysis of intervention research. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 27(1), 21–32. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5826.2011.00347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fritschmann, N. S., Deshler, D. D., & Schumaker, J. B. (2007). The effects of instruction in an inference strategy on the reading comprehension skills of adolescents with disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30, 245–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Compton, D., Coyne, M., Greenwood, C., & Innocenti, M. S. (2005). Quality indicators for group experimental and quasi-experimental research in special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 149–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Williams, J. P., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of research. Review of Educational Research, 71(2), 279–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gilabert, R., Martinez, G., & Vidal-Abarca, E. (2005). Some good texts are always better: Text revision to foster inferences of readers with high and low prior background knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 15(1), 45–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Glazer, S.M., Searfoss, L.W., & Gentile, L.M. (1988). Re-examining reading diagnosis: New trends and procedures in classrooms and clinics. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
  19. Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gurney, D., Gersten, R., Dimino, J., & Carnine, D. (1990). Story grammar: Effective literature instruction for high school students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23(6), 335–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hanna, G., Schell, L.M., & Schreiner, R. (1977) The Nelson reading skills test. Los Angeles: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  22. Hansen, J., & Pearson, P. D. (1983). An instructional study: Improving the inferential comprehension of good and poor fourth-grade readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(6), 821–829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Holmes, B. C. (1985). The effects of a strategy and sequenced materials on the inferential comprehension of disabled readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 18(9), 542–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (2005). The use of single-subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 165–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Institute of Education Sciences. (2008). What Works Clearinghouse study review standards. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/ wwc/pdf/reference_resources/wwc_version1_standards.pdf.
  26. Institute of Education Sciences (2013). What Works Clearinghouse procedures and standards handbook (Version 3.0). Retrieved February 14, 2014, from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/documentsum.aspx?sid=19.
  27. Johnson, D. D., & Pearson, P. D. (1978). Teaching reading vocabulary. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  28. Kendeou, P., & van den Broek, P. (2005). The effects of readers’ misconceptions on com- prehension of scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 235–245.Google Scholar
  29. Kendeou, P., Bohn-Gettler, C., White, M., & van den Broek, P. (2008). Children’s inference generation across different media. Journal of Research in Reading, 31, 259–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kintsch, W. (1993). Information accretion and reduction in text processing: Inferences. Discourse Processes, 16, 193–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Kispal, A. (2008). Effective teaching of inference skills for reading: Literature review (DCSF Research Report 031). London: DCSFGoogle Scholar
  33. Mason, L. H. (2004). Explicit self-regulated strategy development versus reciprocal questioning: Effects on expository reading comprehension among struggling readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(2), 283–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Hamilton, S. L., Wolfe, S., Whedon, C., & Canevaro, A. (1996). Promoting thinking skills of students with learning disabilities: Effects on recall and comprehension of expository prose. Exceptionality, 6(1), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McCormick, S., & Hill, D. S. (1984). An analysis of the effects of two procedures for increasing disabled readers’ inferencing skills. Journal of Educational Research, 77(4), 219–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McGee, A., & Johnson, H. (2003). The effect of inference training on skilled and less skilled comprehenders. Educational Psychology, 23(1), 49–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McMaster, K. L., van den Broek, P., Espin, C. A., White, M. J., Rapp, D. N., Kendeou, P., Bohn-Gettler, C. M., & Carlson, S. (2012). Making the right connections: Differential effects of reading intervention for subgroups of comprehenders. Learning and Individual Differences, 22, 100–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14(1), 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Neale, M. D. (1989). The Neale Analysis of Reading Ability—Revised British Edition. Windsor, United Kingdom: NFER-Nelson.Google Scholar
  40. Oakhill, J. V. (1982). Constructive processes in skilled and less-skilled comprehenders’ memory for sentences. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 13–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Oakhill, J. V. (1984). Inferential and memory skills in children’s comprehension of stories. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 54, 31–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Oakhill, J., & Cain, K. (2012). The precursors of reading ability in young readers: Evidence from a four-year longitudinal study. Scientific Studies of Reading, 16(2), 91–121. doi: 10.1080/10888438.2010.529219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Oakhill, J. V., Cain, K., & Bryant, P. E. (2003). The dissociation of word reading and text comprehension: Evidence from component skills. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 443–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ouellette, G., D’Agostino, L., & Carifio, J. (1999). The effects of exposure to children’s literature through read-aloud and on inferencing strategy on low reading ability fifth graders’ sense of story structure and reading comprehension. Reading Improvement, 36(2), 73–89.Google Scholar
  45. Prescott, G. A., Balow, I. H., Hogan, T. P., & Farr, R. C. (1978). Metropolitan achievement tests. New York: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
  46. Prescott, G. A., Balow, I. H., Hogan, T. P., & Farr, R. C. (1984). Metropolitan achievement tests, (6th ed.). New York: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
  47. Raphael, T. E., & Pearson, P. D. (1985). Increasing students’ awareness of sources of information for answering questions. American Educational Research Journal, 22(2), 217–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Raphael, T. E., & Wonnacott, C. A. (1985). Heightening fourth-grade students’ sensitivity to sources of information for answering comprehension questions. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(3), 282–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rapp, D. N., van den Broek, P., McMaster, K. L., Kendeou, P., & Espin, C. A. (2007). Higher-order comprehension processes in struggling readers: A perspective for research and intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(4), 289–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Scammacca, N., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S., & Stuebing, K. K. (2013). A meta-analysis of interventions for struggling readers in grades 4–12: 1980–2011. Journal of Learning Disabilities, advanced online copy. doi:  10.1177/0022219413504995.
  51. Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & Casto, G. (1987). The quantitative synthesis of single subject research methodology: Methodology and validation. Remedial and Special Education, 8, 24–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Singer, M., Harkness, D., & Stewart, S. T. (1997). Constructing inferences in expository text comprehension. Discourse Processes, 24(2–3), 199–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Solis, M., Ciullo, S., Vaughn, S., Pyle, N., Hassaram, B., & Leroux, A. (2011). Reading comprehension interventions for middle school students with learning disabilities: A synthesis of 30 years of research. Journal of learning disabilities, 0022219411402691.Google Scholar
  54. Torgerson, C. J. (2006). Publication bias: the Achilles’ heel of systematic reviews? British Journal of Educational Studies, 54(1), 89–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wanzek, J., & Vaughn, S. (2007). Research-based implications from extensive early reading interventions. School Psychology Review, 36(4), 541–561.Google Scholar
  56. Wanzek, J., Vaughn, S., Wexler, J., Swanson, E., Edmonds, M. E., & Kim, A.-H. (2006). A synthesis of spelling and reading interventions and their effects on the spelling outcomes of students with LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 528–543. doi: 10.1177/00222194060390060501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Warren, W. H., Nicholas, D. W., & Trabasso, T. (1979). Event chains and inferences in understanding narratives. In R. O. Freedle (Ed.), New directions in discourse processing (Vol. 2). Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
  58. Wendt, O. (2009, May). Calculating effect sizes for single-subject experimental designs. Paper presented at the Ninth Annual International Campbell Collaboration Colloquium, Oslo, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  59. Winne, P. H., Graham, L., & Prock, L. (1993). A model of poor readers’ text-based inferencing: Effects of explanatory feedback. Reading Research Quarterly, 28(1), 53–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Yuill, N., & Joscelyne, P. (1988). Effects of organizational cues and strategies on good and poor comprehenders’ story understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 59–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Yuill, N., & Oakhill, J. (1988). Effects of inference awareness training on poor reading comprehension. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2, 33–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Meadows Center for Preventing Educational RiskThe University of Texas at AustinAustinUSA

Personalised recommendations