moving from explicit to implicit: a case study of improving inferential comprehension
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Moving From Explicit to Implicit: A Case Study of Improving Inferential Comprehension](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022020113/5750a8201a28abcf0cc64143/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
This article was downloaded by: [Eindhoven Technical University]On: 21 November 2014, At: 00:05Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Literacy Research and InstructionPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ulri20
Moving From Explicit to Implicit: ACase Study of Improving InferentialComprehensionYi-Fen Yeh a , Erin M. McTigue b & R. Malatesha Joshi ba National Taiwan Normal University , Taipei , Taiwanb Texas A&M University , College Station , Texas , USAPublished online: 14 Feb 2012.
To cite this article: Yi-Fen Yeh , Erin M. McTigue & R. Malatesha Joshi (2012) Moving From Explicitto Implicit: A Case Study of Improving Inferential Comprehension, Literacy Research and Instruction,51:2, 125-142, DOI: 10.1080/19388071.2010.546492
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2010.546492
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
![Page 2: Moving From Explicit to Implicit: A Case Study of Improving Inferential Comprehension](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022020113/5750a8201a28abcf0cc64143/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Literacy Research and Instruction, 51: 125–142, 2012Copyright © Association of Literacy Educators and ResearchersISSN: 1938-8071 print / 1938-8063 onlineDOI: 10.1080/19388071.2010.546492
Moving From Explicit to Implicit: A Case Study ofImproving Inferential Comprehension
YI-FEN YEH
National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan
ERIN M. MCTIGUE AND R. MALATESHA JOSHI
Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas
The article describes a successful intervention program in developing inferential comprehensionin a sixth grader. Steve (pseudonym) was proficient in word reading, was able to detect explicitinformation while reading, but struggled with linking textual information to yield integral ideas.After 10 weeks of working with Steve on word analogies, reading/composing riddles, “solving”short mystery stories, and modeling think-alouds, there was a substantial progress of Steve’s log-ical reasoning, meta-cognitive thinking, and inferential reading skills. Practical information forteachers regarding selection of assessment instruments, assessment interpretation, as well as instruc-tional recommendations for students demonstrating difficulty with inferential comprehension is alsoprovided.
Keywords adolescent literacy, struggling readers, comprehension, assessment
During our initial screening at a university reading clinic, sixth grader Steve (pseudonym)displayed pride and enthusiasm of his highly accurate pronunciation and rapid oral readingperformance. However, when asked follow-up comprehension questions on the readings,his initial confidence quickly faded, with anxiety replacing enjoyment. If the questionswere explicit in nature, he was often able to provide text-dependent information, but usu-ally in fragmental recalls. If the questions required an overall understanding of texts orinferential thinking, he often answered with “I don’t know.” Even after receiving encour-agement to read with intonation and guidance for approaching implicit type of questions,his inferential comprehension was very low.
We initially considered Steve’s performance within the overall framework of Goughand Tunmer’s (1986) Simple View of Reading (Reading = Decoding × LanguageComprehension); Steve’s conception of reading was only half of the picture; he was skill-ful in word decoding but unable to weave together relevant pieces of information. Sucha decoding-based conception of reading is, unfortunately, not rare among older studentswho are presumed to be able to read independently for meaning (Leach, Scarborough,& Rescorla, 2003). This discrepancy may reflect the recent emphasis for fluent readingwhich is primarily defined by speed and accuracy. In the following sections we, his tutorand faculty supervisors, detail our work with Steve to help him become more successful atcomprehension, specifically at the inferential level. Through documenting Steve’s assess-ment and response to instruction, we are able to provide reading teachers with strategies
Address correspondence to Dr. Yi-Fen Yeh, Science Education Center, National Taiwan Normal University,#88, Sec. 4, Ting-Choc Rd. Taipei, 116, Taiwan. E-mail: [email protected]
125
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ein
dhov
en T
echn
ical
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
0:05
21
Nov
embe
r 20
14
![Page 3: Moving From Explicit to Implicit: A Case Study of Improving Inferential Comprehension](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022020113/5750a8201a28abcf0cc64143/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
126 Y.-F. Yeh et al.
for conceptualizing reading difficulties; diagnosing strengths and weaknesses; and design-ing appropriate activities for improving overall inferential reading. Further, a summaryof tutoring sessions, based on recent research, and examples of Steve’s progress are alsoprovided.
Background
Remedial Reading Instruction in Classrooms
Reading difficulties are prevalent across all ages and grade levels (Shaywitz, Morris,& Shaywitz, 2008), and arise in many forms. According to National Assessment ofEducational Progress (NAEP) results, 67% of fourth-grade students and 75% of eighth-grade students had only basic (compared to proficient or advanced) reading skills (U.S.Department of Education, 2009). According to NAEP’s definitions, readers at a basic levelrefer to those who can interpret the meaning of words within their context, make neces-sary inferences, and support their claims regarding a conclusion with details from the text;whereas readers at a proficient level possess the ability to integrate relevant informationfrom the text and then make evaluations or judgments about those texts. The large per-centage of readers at the basic level indicates not only the indispensability of effectiveclassroom instruction in comprehension, but also the existence of students with readingdifficulties.
Unfortunately, many classroom educators may not receive the preparation necessaryfor identifying the specific patterns of reading difficulties (Sideridis, Mouzaki, Simons, &Protopapas, 2006) and instead tend to rely on more general terms to conceptualize readingdifficulties. According to McKenna and Stahl (2003) the term struggling reader is popular“precisely because it lacks precision” (p. 1). However, it must be recognized that strugglingreaders are not a homogeneous group, but a heterogeneous group containing many uniqueprofiles. Therefore, it is useful to consider specific case studies of children because, withinthe heterogeneities, there are different patterns of difficulty and success (Morris, 2005).
Additionally, reading interventions for struggling older readers frequently focus ondecoding skills rather than comprehension (Kintsch, 1998), which does not match withmany older readers’ needs. Good decoding skills are necessary, but clearly not sufficient,for insuring reading comprehension. For example, limited reading fluency and/or auto-maticity are potential factors leading to the “4th-grade slump” (Chall, 1983; Chall & Jacobs2003). Even after mastering decoding, the majority of struggling readers may still face dif-ficulties integrating meaningful information from sentences and contexts (Miller, 1988;Smith, 1988). These comprehension difficulties, due in part to the development of com-plex and abstract thinking, require substantial knowledge for classroom teachers to detect.This article provides valuable instructional ideas for teachers of upper-grade readers bydocumenting a struggling reader’s experiences, as well as his response to our instructionalefforts.
Models for Reading Development
Numerous researchers have developed stage models regarding the development of read-ing abilities, in order to accurately reflect the complex and lengthy path a student takesfrom emergent to proficient literacy skills (e.g., Chall, 1983; Hoover & Gough, 1990;Rupley, Willson, & Nichols, 1998; Seymour, 1997, 1999; Spear-Swerling & Sternberg,1996). Among these models, Spear-Swerling and Sternberg’s model of reading disabilities(1996) describes how readers may proceed off-track at multiple stages, which results in
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ein
dhov
en T
echn
ical
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
0:05
21
Nov
embe
r 20
14
![Page 4: Moving From Explicit to Implicit: A Case Study of Improving Inferential Comprehension](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022020113/5750a8201a28abcf0cc64143/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Moving From Explicit to Implicit 127
subtypes of struggling readers. It is important to note that the model predicts that all stu-dents follow the same type of development, rather than predicting that struggling readersdevelop in a manner unique from their higher-achieving peers. This model provides teach-ers with guidance regarding the required focus of instruction in order to put students back“on track.”
Although providing a good starting point from which teachers can diagnose readingproblems, Spear-Swerling and Sternberg’s Road Map does not detail the developmentalprocess of reading comprehension. For providing insight specifically into reading com-prehension, we considered Kintsch’s construction-integration (CI) model (1988, 1998) toexplain how readers comprehend texts, and what difficulties students may face when doingso. The model’s name reflects the underlying premise, which is that successful readingcomprehension is a cyclical and propositional processing activity involving knowledgeconstruction and knowledge integration. The initial phase is constructed through readers’understanding of a three-level, locally textual input made up of the surface level, the text-based level, and the situational model. Throughout the process, readers continually makeinferences in order to maintain coherent local and global mental models.
In support of the integral role of inference-making within reading comprehension,recent empirical findings demonstrate that inference-making ability helps readers’ com-prehension, beyond decoding, vocabulary, and verbal skills (Cain & Oakhill, 1999; Cain,Oakhill, Barnes, & Bryant, 2001). In other words, inference-making appears to be a uniqueskill. As such, inference-making skills may not innately develop concurrently as a learner’sdecoding and vocabulary progress. Also, while it has been known that skilled young read-ers make more inferences than less skilled readers (Laing & Kamhi, 2002; Trabasso &Magliano, 1996), findings were unable to establish clearly whether inferences are a resultof good comprehension, or if they help comprehension. More recent findings indicatethat inference skills are likely precursors to facilitating comprehension (Cain, Oakhill, &Bryant, 2004).
Steve’s Challenges
Based on the initial assessments, we determined Steve to be a “suboptimal reader” inSpear-Swerling and Sternberg’s model. This classification means that Steve went off trackafter his acquisition of decoding skills but prior to becoming a reader with higher-orderlevels of comprehension. This determination concurred with Steve’s parents’ reports ofSteve’s fourth-grade slump pattern, in which he had been successful in early elementaryschool reading but then had difficulty with comprehending content-area reading. Basedon his mother’s observations, it was noted that Steve’s motivation for reading decreasedas his grade level advanced, which is also typical among older students (Leach et al.,2003; McKenna, Kear, & Ellsworth, 1995). Steve’s parents, who were both highly edu-cated, valued education and worked to create long-term enthusiasm for reading. Towardthat aim they provided many literacy opportunities for him, including visiting bookstores,and consistently modeled reading for him through regular family reading times. However,despite these efforts, Steve’s mother also noted that she had difficulty in engaging Steve indiscussions regarding what he had read.
Steve’s initial reading performance, indicating that he had sufficient knowledge inphonics and orthographic patterns, led us to suspect that Steve’s comprehension difficultieswere rooted in vocabulary difficulties or with strategies regarding how to weave informa-tion together logically (Kintsch, 1988, 1998). We determined that the best way to revealSteve’s reading comprehension difficulties was through formative feedback with an obser-vant tutor. In the sessions described below, we explain the testing batteries we employed;
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ein
dhov
en T
echn
ical
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
0:05
21
Nov
embe
r 20
14
![Page 5: Moving From Explicit to Implicit: A Case Study of Improving Inferential Comprehension](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022020113/5750a8201a28abcf0cc64143/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
128 Y.-F. Yeh et al.
justify the diagnostic results by triangulating different scores; present how we designedand conducted appropriate interventions; and document Steve’s learning growth.
Summary of Steve’s Profile
The Selection of Assessments
In order to provide effective lessons, accurate diagnosises of students’ reading levels andtheir underlying language abilities, decoding ability, fluency, and attitudes towards read-ing is required. Much research has indicated that word knowledge, though functioning asa multidimensional construct, predicts students’ reading ability (e.g., Dixon, LeFevre, &Twilley, 1988; Hunt, Lunneborg, & Lewis, 1975; Thorndike, 1973). Furthermore, compre-hension level is also found partially determined by grammatical knowledge (i.e., syntaxknowledge), particularly for older readers (Cain, 2007). To this aim, both formal and infor-mal reading batteries, as well as criterion-referenced and norm-referenced assessmentswere selected in an effort to measure Steve’s literacy competence in a holistic manner.
In selecting a criterion referenced test, we decided on the Qualitative ReadingInventory (QRI-4) (Leslie & Caldwell, 2006). Like most Informal Reading Inventories(IRIs), the QRI-4, provides grade-level word lists as well as reading passages, followedby comprehension questions. IRIs’ use for identifying struggling readers (e.g., Morris,Ervin, & Conrad, 1996; Warrican, 2006) and for understanding unique profiles ofreading difficulties has been well established (Dewitz & Dewitz, 2003). Additionally,the QRI-4 has higher levels of reliability when compared to currently available IRIs(Spector, 2005) having, for example, interrater reliability of .99 for total miscues, .98 forexplicit comprehension, and .98 for implicit comprehension and alternate form reliability(different passages at the same grade level) of .88 (Leslie & Caldwell, 2006). While wefollowed the recommended administration procedure of the QRI-4, we concentrated ourattention on Steve’s performance at the sixth grade level. We did not explore how Stevedid with more difficult texts because the concern of both his family and his teachers wasto help him access information at his grade level.
For the purpose of triangulating and establishing more accurate diagnosis results withthe QRI-4, we also used a norm-referenced literacy assessment, the Woodcock LanguageProficiency Battery–Revised (WLPB–R) (Woodcock & Johnson, 1990). Additionally, spe-cific tests of the WLPB–R, such as Reading Vocabulary and Verbal Analogies, helped usunderstand how he handled deep word knowledge. The Test of Language Development–Intermediate: 3rd edition (TOLD–I:3), a norm-referenced assessment with test reliabilitycoefficients ranging from .92 to .98 (Hammill & Newcomer, 1997), provided additionalinsight into Steve’s command of semantics and his use of syntax. In order to make surethat his reading difficulties were not rooted in difficulties with decoding and orthographicprocessing, we used Words their Way–Intermediate Spelling Inventory (Bear, Invernizzi,Templeton, & Johnston, 2004) to reveal his understanding of spelling patterns and toprovide relevant instructional ideas.
In addition to direct reading assessments, we also measured how Steve actively usedlanguage and how he viewed reading. To this aim, we had him complete an open-endedwriting assignment from a prompt and analyzed his use of organization, syntax and vocab-ulary choice in written language. Furthermore, Steve also completed a reading “attitude”survey (McKenna & Stahl, 2003) to help us learn more about his reading preferences andhabits for the purpose of planning for instruction and insight about his daily reading behav-iors. The summary of the diagnostic results are presented in Table 1, accompanied byexamples and explanations.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ein
dhov
en T
echn
ical
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
0:05
21
Nov
embe
r 20
14
![Page 6: Moving From Explicit to Implicit: A Case Study of Improving Inferential Comprehension](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022020113/5750a8201a28abcf0cc64143/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Tabl
e1
Stev
e’s
initi
alte
stre
sults
(Sep
tem
ber)
Test
ing
batte
ries
Raw
scor
es/ac
cura
cyIn
terp
reta
tion
Wor
dK
now
ledg
eQ
RI-
4(W
ord
Lis
t)-
Aut
omat
icw
ord
reco
gniti
onin
isol
atio
n:in
depe
nden
tlev
elat
his
grad
ele
vela
ndin
stru
ctio
nala
tthe
“upp
erm
iddl
e-sc
hool
”le
vel
-6t
hgr
ade
95%
(flas
h)10
0%(u
ntim
ed)
-U
pper
Mid
dle
Scho
ol80
%(fl
ash)
80%
(unt
imed
)W
ords
thei
rW
ay-
The
Syll
able
san
dA
ffixe
sst
age
(Bea
r,In
vern
izzi
,Tem
plet
on,&
John
ston
,200
4),
diffi
culty
with
mul
tisyl
labi
cw
ords
cont
aini
ngun
acce
nted
final
s(e
.g.,
LE
SEN
inst
ead
ofle
sson
)or
redu
ced
vow
els
(e.g
.,C
ATA
GO
RY
inst
ead
ofca
tego
ry)
-T
hein
term
edia
teSp
ellin
gIn
vent
ory
Rea
ding
Com
preh
ensi
on
QR
I-4
(6th
grad
epa
ssag
es)
-A
nsw
ered
92%
ofth
eex
plic
itqu
estio
nsco
rrec
tly,b
uton
ly36
%of
the
impl
icit
ques
tions
corr
ectly
,in
tota
l.-
Ora
lly10
0%(e
xplic
it)50
%(i
mpl
icit)
-Pa
rtic
ular
lyst
rugg
led
with
the
sile
ntre
adin
gpa
ssag
e.
-Si
lent
ly75
%(e
xplic
it)33
%(i
mpl
icit)
-O
ften
perp
lexe
dw
ithqu
estio
nsth
atre
quir
edhi
mto
mak
ere
lati
onal
infe
renc
es(i
.e.,
wha
tis
the
pass
age
mai
nly
abou
t?)
(Dew
itz&
Dew
itz,2
003)
.-
Aur
ally
100%
(exp
licit)
25%
(im
plic
it)-
Eve
npr
ovid
edw
ithgu
idan
ceon
mis
sed
ques
tions
(i.e
.,op
port
uniti
esto
goba
ckan
dre
read
the
text
),St
eve
dem
onst
rate
dco
ntin
ued
diffi
culty
with
answ
erin
gin
fere
ntia
lqu
estio
ns.
(Con
tinu
ed)
129
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ein
dhov
en T
echn
ical
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
0:05
21
Nov
embe
r 20
14
![Page 7: Moving From Explicit to Implicit: A Case Study of Improving Inferential Comprehension](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022020113/5750a8201a28abcf0cc64143/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Tabl
e1
(Con
tinue
d)
Test
ing
batte
ries
Raw
scor
es/ac
cura
cyIn
terp
reta
tion
Lin
guis
ticC
ompe
tenc
e(S
ynta
x)TO
LD
-I:3
8(A
vg.)
-St
eve’
ssc
ore
onth
eW
ord
Ord
erin
gw
aspo
or,b
uthi
sco
mpo
site
scor
ew
asst
illin
the
aver
age
rang
eon
synt
ax.S
uch
anes
peci
ally
low
perf
orm
ance
may
bedu
eto
poor
wor
king
mem
ory
rath
erth
anpo
orsy
ntax
(Cai
n,20
06;C
ain
&O
akhi
ll,20
06).
Stev
e’s
good
perf
orm
ance
inan
othe
rin
form
alta
skof
havi
nghi
mto
crea
tese
nten
ces
whe
npr
esen
ted
with
wor
dsw
ritte
non
card
ste
ntat
ivel
yto
ldus
that
Stev
eha
dad
equa
tere
cept
ive
synt
actic
alsk
ills
for
his
age,
butm
ayha
vedi
fficu
lties
prod
uctiv
ely
usin
gth
em.
-Se
nten
ceC
ombi
ning
12(A
bove
Avg
.)-
Gra
mm
atic
alC
ompr
ehen
sion
4(P
oor)
-W
ord
Ord
erin
g
Lin
guis
ticC
ompe
tenc
e(S
eman
tics)
TOL
D-I
:3-
The
Rea
ding
Voc
abul
ary
test
asse
sses
stud
ents
’kn
owle
dge
oflit
eral
lang
uage
(i.e
.,de
term
inin
gpa
irs
ofw
ords
assy
nony
ms
oran
tony
ms)
whe
reas
the
Pict
ure
Voc
abul
ary
test
mea
sure
dun
ders
tand
ing
offig
urat
ive
lang
uage
(i.e
.,ch
oosi
nga
pict
ure
that
desc
ribe
stw
o-w
ord
phra
ses,
such
as“k
een
edge
d”).
Inre
spon
seto
thes
etw
o-w
ord
phra
ses,
Stev
ew
ould
freq
uent
lyse
lect
api
ctur
eth
atre
pres
ente
don
lyon
eof
the
wor
dsra
ther
than
the
com
plet
eph
rase
.Suc
hm
ista
kes
indi
cate
dth
athe
may
notb
ein
tegr
atin
gth
ew
ords
’in
divi
dual
mea
ning
sin
orde
rto
cons
ider
phra
ses
asa
sing
leun
it.
-G
ener
alSu
btes
ts8
(Avg
.)-
Pict
ure
Voc
abul
ary
7(B
elow
Avg
.)-
Mal
apro
pism
6(B
elow
Avg
.)
130
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ein
dhov
en T
echn
ical
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
0:05
21
Nov
embe
r 20
14
![Page 8: Moving From Explicit to Implicit: A Case Study of Improving Inferential Comprehension](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022020113/5750a8201a28abcf0cc64143/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
WL
PB
-R-
The
sem
antic
com
posi
tequ
otie
nton
the
TO
LD
-I:3
plac
edhi
mat
the
low
eren
dof
“be
low
aver
age”
(10t
hpe
rcen
tile
rank
).W
eco
nclu
ded
that
alth
ough
Stev
em
aybe
fam
iliar
with
anad
equa
tenu
mbe
rof
wor
dsfo
rhi
sag
e,he
may
nota
dequ
atel
yin
tegr
ate
wor
dm
eani
ngs
with
inph
rase
s.
-R
eadi
ngV
ocab
ular
y64
%(A
vg.)
-V
erba
lAna
logi
es54
%(A
vg.)
Wri
ting
Wri
ting
prom
ptab
outa
“pas
sion
”(P
ike-
Bak
y,&
Flem
ing,
2005
)
A30
4-w
ord
essa
yin
13m
inut
es-
The
maj
ority
ofhi
ses
say
was
com
pose
dof
run-
onse
nten
ces.
-T
heov
eral
lcoh
eren
ceof
the
piec
ew
asla
ckin
gbe
caus
ew
hile
hede
scri
bed
the
rule
sof
the
gam
eof
socc
erin
deta
il,he
neve
rad
dres
sed
the
them
eof
the
piec
ean
dex
plai
ned
why
heen
joye
dso
ccer
.His
wri
ting
rese
mbl
edhi
sor
alla
ngua
geby
anov
erre
lianc
eon
conj
unct
ive
wor
ds,s
uch
as“a
nd”
and
“or.”
Atti
tude
sR
eadi
ngA
ttit
ude
Surv
ey(M
cKen
na&
Stah
l,20
03)
-H
ein
itial
lyac
ted
unin
tere
sted
abou
tatte
ndin
gre
adin
gtu
tori
ngbu
tbec
ame
enga
ged
and
enth
usia
stic
over
time.
131
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ein
dhov
en T
echn
ical
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
0:05
21
Nov
embe
r 20
14
![Page 9: Moving From Explicit to Implicit: A Case Study of Improving Inferential Comprehension](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022020113/5750a8201a28abcf0cc64143/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
132 Y.-F. Yeh et al.
Diagnostic Interpretations
In total, through both the assessments and subsequent tutoring sessions, Steve demon-strated strengths included excellent decoding skills, adequate vocabulary and syntaxknowledge, and ability to recall explicit information from text. Informal conversationswith Steve made it clear that he also possessed extensive world knowledge for his age.However, despite these skills, he struggled with implicit comprehension tasks and showedlimited skills at applying his syntactical knowledge in writing. Based on these findings, wedeveloped a tutoring plan with the goal of giving Steve the tools needed to grapple withthe more inferential aspects of reading comprehension.
Planning and Implementing Tutoring
Returning to CI model (Kintsch, 1988, 1998), we conjectured that Steve may need assis-tance in both local connections (i.e., word level) and global connections (i.e., connectingideas within and beyond the text). Because our assessments revealed that Steve tendedto operate on the explicit or literal level of comprehension, we suspected that a difficultywith inference-making was limiting Steve’s ability to connect more deeply with the text.Therefore, we designed the tutorial lessons to help develop his inferential-thinking abil-ity at multiple levels of text. Toward this aim, we provided lessons on (a) word analogy,(b) short riddles, (c) short mystery stories, and (d) modeling with think-alouds, which aredescribed below. This approach helped us to practice weaving both local and global lev-els of information together to generate well-grounded relational inferences in a systematicmanner. Additionally, by starting at smaller units such as word pairs, Steve more quicklyexperienced success which built his confidence and interest in meeting larger challenges.As mentioned earlier, he was initially disengaged in the tutoring process, but became moreenthusiastic as he could see his growth.
Steve’s Tutorial Lessons
We present an overview of the lessons, and examples of the materials used in Tables 2and 3. In the following section we provide details on how we implemented the process aswell as notes regarding Steve’s progress. As for the time allocation, we spent 10 minutespracticing word analogies in the first five instructional lessons, 20 minutes on five con-secutive lessons working with riddle appreciation and composition, and two 25-minutebuddy readings of two mystery stories followed by take-home reading activities, withreview discussions in the following lessons. It is also important to note that the skill lessonsdevoted to inferential thinking were only a portion of his tutoring time. Within each meet-ing, Steve also read longer pieces of authentic text on topics of interest to him. Continuousmodeling, thinking-alouds, and discussing metaphoric words were also exercises employedthroughout the tutoring, whenever appropriate.
Word Analogy. By virtue of the format (e.g., turtle: reptile :: dog: ____), word analogyrequires readers to figure out the relationship between the first pair and then apply thatrelationship to a second pair of words. They move from concrete (a word pair), to abstract(a relationship type), and back to concrete (a second word pair). Among the eight types ofword analogies (Vacca & Vacca, 2007), Steve’s lessons focused on cause and effect (e.g.,green: go :: red: ____), synonym (e.g., clear: ____ :: blocked: obstructed), and antonym(e.g., come: go :: wet: ____). After working with the more common types, Steve also
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ein
dhov
en T
echn
ical
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
0:05
21
Nov
embe
r 20
14
![Page 10: Moving From Explicit to Implicit: A Case Study of Improving Inferential Comprehension](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022020113/5750a8201a28abcf0cc64143/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Tabl
e2
The
ratio
nale
and
desi
gns
ofre
adin
gin
terv
entio
nsfo
cusi
ngon
wor
d-le
veli
nfer
entia
labi
lity
Wor
dan
alog
ySh
ortr
iddl
es
Purp
oses
•Foc
uson
the
mos
tbas
icun
itin
fere
nce.
•Str
engt
hen
lexi
calk
now
ledg
ean
dde
velo
pve
rbal
reas
onin
gab
ility
.
•Dev
elop
sens
itivi
tyto
lang
uage
(e.g
.,pu
ns,fi
gura
tive
phra
ses,
met
apho
rs).
•Im
prov
ein
fere
ntia
lthi
nkin
gon
clue
s.R
atio
nale
s•S
timul
ate
infe
rent
iala
bilit
y(R
eade
nce
etal
.,19
98)
and
criti
calt
hink
ing
abili
ty(V
acca
&V
acca
,200
7).
•App
reci
ate
and
prac
tice
high
-lev
ellin
guis
ticam
bigu
ity(Y
uill,
1998
).•S
caff
old
“men
talm
odel
s”am
ong
wor
dsan
dth
enco
nstr
uct
com
plex
conc
epts
with
inw
ords
(Gly
nn,2
007)
.•U
nder
stan
dfig
urat
ive
lang
uage
for
the
purp
ose
ofde
rivi
ngap
prop
riat
ein
fere
nce
(Cai
net
al.,
2009
;Cai
n&
Tow
se,2
008)
.Ty
pes
Part
tow
hole
,cau
sean
def
fect
,per
son
tosi
tuat
ion,
syno
nym
,an
tony
m,g
eogr
aphy
,mea
sure
men
t,an
dtim
e(V
acca
&V
acca
,200
7)
Spel
ling
tric
k,do
uble
mea
ning
,exp
ress
ion,
fam
ous
nam
e,m
etap
hor,
and
trea
sure
hunt
(Ber
nste
in,1
979)
Impl
emen
tatio
n•M
odel
thin
king
stra
tegi
es•R
iddl
eA
ppre
ciat
ion
•Sam
ples
from
SRA
©—
Rea
ding
Lab
orat
ory
(Par
ker,
1985
)•R
iddl
eC
ompo
sitio
nan
dR
evis
ion
•Int
erac
tive
gam
esfr
omed
ucat
iona
lweb
site
s(h
ttp://
ww
w.
will
ough
by-e
astla
ke.k
12.o
h.us
/cla
ssro
om/te
chno
logy
/)•R
iddl
esan
dte
achi
ngre
sour
ces
atth
eR
ead-
Wri
te-T
hink
web
site
•Rid
dle
Gam
esat
http
://fu
nsch
ool.k
aboo
se.c
om
133
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ein
dhov
en T
echn
ical
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
0:05
21
Nov
embe
r 20
14
![Page 11: Moving From Explicit to Implicit: A Case Study of Improving Inferential Comprehension](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022020113/5750a8201a28abcf0cc64143/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Tabl
e3
The
ratio
nale
and
desi
gns
ofre
adin
gin
terv
entio
nsfo
cusi
ngon
pass
age-
leve
linf
eren
tiala
bilit
y
Shor
tmys
tery
stor
ies
Thi
nk-A
loud
s
Purp
ose
•Enh
ance
the
text
com
preh
ensi
onth
roug
hde
tect
ing
supp
ortiv
ein
form
atio
nan
dm
akin
glo
gica
linf
eren
ces.
•Pro
mot
em
eta-
cogn
itive
thin
king
.•P
ract
ice
com
preh
ensi
onon
adva
nced
,gra
de-l
evel
text
s.R
atio
nale
•Wel
l-st
ruct
ured
even
ts(i
.e.,
cohe
renc
e)an
dth
em
eani
ngfu
lla
yout
ofth
eco
nnec
tives
(i.e
.,co
hesi
on)
inte
xts
subs
tant
ially
boos
trea
ders
’co
mpr
ehen
sion
and
indi
rect
lyim
prov
eth
equ
ality
ofth
eir
re-p
rodu
ctio
nof
text
s(C
ain,
2003
;Cai
n&
Oak
hill,
1996
).
•Foc
uson
the
deve
lopm
ento
fhi
gher
-lev
elkn
owle
dge,
like
appl
icat
ion,
anal
ysis
,syn
thes
is,a
ndev
alua
tion
ofth
ete
xts
(Blo
omet
al.,
1956
).
Impl
emen
tatio
n•I
dent
ify
clue
sw
ithin
text
s.•S
umm
ariz
ean
dco
mm
ento
nth
eev
ents
•Mod
elth
ink-
alou
ds.
•Eng
age
prob
ing
ques
tions
•Gui
deth
efo
rmat
ion
oflo
gica
linf
eren
ce.
Mat
eria
lsW
ell-
orga
nize
dan
dco
hesi
vely
-str
uctu
red
text
s,su
chas
Enc
yclo
pedi
aB
row
nta
kes
the
cake
!(S
obol
&A
ndre
ws,
1983
).
•“B
iddy
Mas
on”
from
Let
itsh
ine:
Stor
ies
ofbl
ack
wom
enfr
eedo
mfig
hter
s(P
inkn
ey,2
000)
134
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ein
dhov
en T
echn
ical
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
0:05
21
Nov
embe
r 20
14
![Page 12: Moving From Explicit to Implicit: A Case Study of Improving Inferential Comprehension](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022020113/5750a8201a28abcf0cc64143/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Moving From Explicit to Implicit 135
practiced less common analogy types, such as purpose (e.g., divide: cut :: part: ____)and function (e.g., axe: chop :: ____: ____). Through various sets of analogy patterns,students can scaffold their “mental models” to help them figure out complex concepts(Glynn, 2007). In the process of his word analogy learning, Steve demonstrated incre-mental improvement. Initially, he asked for help in approaching the whole task; next,he accessed words directly from their meanings but without using rationale connections;and finally, he ascertained the relationships through thinking abstractly. Through continu-ous modeling of “think-alouds” (Davey, 1983), Steve strengthened his deductive thinkinghelping him to see the association among words.
These word pair activities helped Steve’s ability to seek commonality among words.According to the structure-mapping theory (Gentner, 1983, 1988; Gentner & Markman,1977) and domain-mapping theory (Rumelhart & Abrahamson, 1973; Tourangeau &Sternberg, 1981, 1982), analogical thinking ability can help readers to organize relatedwords with multiple and figurative meanings of vocabulary more effectively. For exam-ple, by making connections between words, students can understand that while secure andarrogant are both synonyms for confident, their connotations differ. Such thinking abilityis critical when encountering figurative language. For example, when Steve read the phrase“calm pocket” in a news article entitled “‘Free Willy’ whale, Keiko dies” from CNN, hewas initially confused. His tutor had to first explain to Steve the phrase through the literalmeaning of “pocket of calm” first, and then guided Steve to apply that concept to the arti-cle. He had to use contextual clues to imagine where “Willy” lived; that it was not actuallya pocket, but a peaceful swimming area for whales.
Overall, though we practiced Steve’s analogical thinking at both the word and phraselevels, we observed that Steve began to apply his analogical thinking into organizing largerword groups and transferred his knowledge. When we began his tutoring, Steve soughtassistance in all steps of solving analogy pairs. By mid way through the tutoring sessions,he could easily generate a word map with at least six words related to a core conceptand verbalize the relationships. By the end of the tutoring sessions, he was able to makerelationships between two entire texts, for example by comparing Martin Luther King’sefforts to those of Biddy Mason.
Short Riddles. Riddles can be a transitional means enabling students’ progress from wordlevel puzzles to slightly longer texts in an enjoyable manner. Riddles can offer read-ers opportunities to practice integrating local information (e.g., clues) in a logical sense.Steinbergh (1999) pointed out that the figurative language in riddles develops along acontinuum in school curriculum, starting from the use of similes with a concrete object(the second grade), then moving to intuitive senses (the fourth grade), to abstract concepts(the sixth grade), and finally to the conscious mastering of abstract metaphors (the eighthgrade).
Our lessons involving riddles were designed not only to develop Steve’s inferentialthinking ability, but also his higher-order language skills through a series of short riddleexercises geared toward appreciation and composition. First, we guided Steve to appre-ciate riddles that would challenge him to understand “metaphors” in order to encourageSteve to make word-level meaning inferences and work on meta-cognitive skills of mon-itoring comprehension. On the first day, Steve showed great motivation for figuring outthe answers of a list of riddles. However, after spending a few minutes pondering theseriddles, he became disappointed that he could not solve any of them. Seizing the teachablemoment, the tutor modeled and asked Steve questions that would direct his thinking for thefollowing riddle. (The answer is wind.)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ein
dhov
en T
echn
ical
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
0:05
21
Nov
embe
r 20
14
![Page 13: Moving From Explicit to Implicit: A Case Study of Improving Inferential Comprehension](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022020113/5750a8201a28abcf0cc64143/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
136 Y.-F. Yeh et al.
Riddle 1
Voiceless it cries,
Wingless flutters,
Toothless bites,
Mouthless mutters.
—J. R. R. Tolkien
Steve’s tutor rephrased the riddle in a more narrative format: “Ok, we know there issomething. You cannot hear it when it cries. It can fly without wings and cut other objectswithout teeth. Sometimes, it mutters but it doesn’t have a mouth.” Steve guessed “fish.”The tutor guided him by pointing out that “While yes, people can’t really hear if a fishcries but a fish does have a mouth.” She then encouraged him to think beyond an animaland to a “natural phenomena.” Steve was still stuck so she offered the explanation of wind.He was still puzzled and asked, “But how can wind cut things?” She explained to himthat the mountains can be marked with wind-cuts, and that strong winds can carry sandthat sweeps at surfaces all day long. However, Steve was dissatisfied by such an abstractanswer.
Second, in order to help Steve think outside the proverbial box, we decided to workon encoding riddles so that he would more explicitly understand their structure. Becausehe was challenged by how riddles would often pose an inanimate object as animated, webegan with a riddle on a concrete object. When asked what he wanted to compose riddlesabout, Steve enthusiastically replied, “Football!” (his favorite sport). Due to his familiaritywith the topic, he quickly produced a list of words related to the concept of “football,”such as “referees” and “side-lines,” and organized the key phrases onto a word map. Then,when requested to take the perspective of “thinking like you are a football,” he wrote downdescriptions like, “You see the stadium, fans of teams, or players.” However, while gettingcloser, he still described the football concretely, instead of like a riddle. The tutor suggestedthat he make the riddle trickier and provide fewer hints by substituting common wordswith synonyms and using more figurative language. After several rounds of rereading andrevisions, he created a “Football Riddle”:
Riddle 2
I get kicked and thrown around,
I feel wind on my skin and laces,
I see people and lights in front of me,
What am I?
After writing his own riddle, Steve approached abstract riddles with greater ease. The pro-cess of writing in more abstract language prepared him with greater understanding whenencountering similar language. Throughout the tutoring sessions, he became quite facile atsolving most types of riddles.
Steve also felt that he was playing fun word games. While we recommend the use ofriddles, it is important to note that when using them, teachers should model think-alouds
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ein
dhov
en T
echn
ical
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
0:05
21
Nov
embe
r 20
14
![Page 14: Moving From Explicit to Implicit: A Case Study of Improving Inferential Comprehension](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022020113/5750a8201a28abcf0cc64143/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Moving From Explicit to Implicit 137
with their students. Otherwise not all students may genuinely understand the logic andhumor of the moment, but simply laugh along with their peers (Zipke, 2008).
Short Mystery Stories. Like riddles and analogies, comprehension of the mystery genrerequires making logical inferences and weaving relevant clues into a multifaceted webof constructed meaning. Logical inferences (e.g., syllogism) can be made more concreteby teachers by purposely selecting texts that demand such thinking. Following criteria byStebick and Dain (2007), we selected text that offered clues for inferences, such as shortmystery stories that rely on the process of deduction. The clues in these texts are generallyexplicit and presented in an entertaining format.
The Encyclopedia Brown series (e.g., Sobol, 1971) centers on the adventures of aprecocious boy detective. Each chapter contains embedded clues and vivid characters thathold readers’ attention. The “answer section” explains the clues in the cases and providesreaders opportunity to self-check whether their inferences are correct in the manner ofimmediate feedback. These short mystery stories highly engaged Steve and provided uswith a means to explicitly practice inference skills within authentic, connected text. Theshort and finite length of each “case” was useful because it allowed for extended time todiscuss the comprehension process in a meta-cognitive manner. The use of short storiesalso helped transition Steve from short texts to longer, more challenging, grade-level texts.
Think-Aloud. We relied on the think-aloud technique (e.g., Davey, 1983) throughout tutor-ing to promote meta-cognitive thinking and help Steve focus on the comprehension aspectof reading rather than the decoding aspect. There is no single, standard operational pro-cedure for implementing think-aloud strategies; however, the process is driven by therationale of modeling and making the comprehension process explicit. The following sec-tion offers some examples of modeling a think-aloud exercise that guided Steve’s readingof Biddy Mason (Pinkney, 2000).
Steve’s tutor challenged him to produce support for his statements rather than remain-ing at a surface-level understanding. During a pre-reading activity, when Steve said that hehad never heard of Biddy Mason, his tutor encouraged him to examine an illustration fromthe story to provide a source for making predictions. She challenged Steve to consider,for example, why houses were featured prominently in the illustration (Biddy Mason wasthe first African-American woman to own land in Los Angeles). By a response “she wasfamous for building up houses around the world,” Steve showed his becoming more accus-tomed to this type of text scrutiny and learning about the cycle of predicting and readingfor confirmation.
Considering Steve’s difficulty with making relational inferences, Steve’s tutor guidedhim to make periodic summaries throughout his reading. This encouraged Steve to con-stantly interact with the text. His tutor modeled her thinking strategies when a connectionbetween complex ideas was needed.
Throughout this work, it became clear that Steve’s difficulties with comprehension didnot result from a lack of familiarity with textual structures; but instead, it stemmed from hisdifficulty with deriving key ideas. When summarizing at the paragraph level, Steve simplycopied down either the first or the last sentence, or pieced together sensational informationwithout integrating ideas. For example, when asked to describe the multiple jobs that Biddyhad held, Steve could only recall that Biddy was “given” as a wedding gift. While this wasa fact from the story, it was not directly connected to the question, and could be classifiedas a “seductive detail” (Harp & Mayer, 1997, 1998).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ein
dhov
en T
echn
ical
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
0:05
21
Nov
embe
r 20
14
![Page 15: Moving From Explicit to Implicit: A Case Study of Improving Inferential Comprehension](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022020113/5750a8201a28abcf0cc64143/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
138 Y.-F. Yeh et al.
In order to help Steve construct relational inferences and not only focus on a discreteevent (Dewitz & Dewitz, 2003), his tutor led him to list the events that occurred in Biddy’searly life and then find the commonalities among these events. After listing the specificfacts of Biddy’s life: being a slave, a mid-wife, and being given a piece of property asa wedding gift, Steve was better able holistically to see what Biddy actually had done.He could then give an inclusive summary of her early life: “as a slave, Biddy had to doall kinds of jobs, but her owners could still sell Biddy for more profits.” In summary, byengaging probing questions during think-alouds (rather than after reading a text), teacherscan enhance students’ different types of thinking strategies (e.g., predicting and makingconnections) and sophisticate their responses/reflections to readings (e.g., associating withrelated concepts).
Progress and Results
As noted in the descriptions of implementation and tutoring notes, there was substantialevidence of Steve’s progress with inferential thinking. As the tasks became more complexand Steve moved from word-level work to riddles to short stories and then to longer texts,he applied skills across situations. He also gained confidence and self-efficacy with tacklingimplicit comprehension questions and being less hesitant in his answers. On the final dayof the 12 tutoring sessions, Steve read two new passages selected from the sixth-grade levelof the Qualitative Reading Inventory (Leslie & Caldwell, 2006) orally (a narrative passage)and silently (an expository passage). He again was successful with the explicit questionsbut also demonstrated notable improvement on the implicit questions, as shown in Figure 1.On the two passages, he answered all explicit questions correctly (100% accuracy) andseven of the eight implicit questions correctly (88% accuracy). Even on the question thathe missed, his answer indicated that he was working to integrate text information and logic,rather than guessing based on his world knowledge. When asked “Why did it take so longto build a pyramid?” in the passage of “Building Pyramid,” (Leslie & Caldwell, 2006) heresponded “it needed a lot of steps. They have to cut the stones, move the stones, and stackthem neatly.” This response indicates that he took information from the text (many steps)and logic (it would take time to create these steps). In summary, although this was not alengthy assessment, the progress was notable, considering that he answered implicit ques-tions with approximately 30% accuracy on the initial assessment. Additionally, through
100.00%
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Acc
urac
y R
ate
Pre-test Post-test
Explicit Questions
Implicit Questions
FIGURE 1 Progress of Steve’s comprehension ability on explicit and implicit questions.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ein
dhov
en T
echn
ical
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
0:05
21
Nov
embe
r 20
14
![Page 16: Moving From Explicit to Implicit: A Case Study of Improving Inferential Comprehension](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022020113/5750a8201a28abcf0cc64143/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Moving From Explicit to Implicit 139
informal updates from Steve’s mother, Steve’s reading comprehension progress was evi-dent in school. During the semester of the tutoring, she noted improvement in both hiscomprehension skills in content classes and his increased interest for academics. Thispositive trajectory of grades continued after the intervention ended.
Final Thoughts
Students who demonstrate accuracy and fluency (as measured by speed) with reading butstruggle with comprehension are often able to navigate undetected through schools by, asTovani (2000) states, “fake reading.” Fake readers rely on class discussions and lecturesto glean information. However, this frequently invisible group of students is not actuallygaining the long term skills needed for success in life. This case study of Steve portrays aseemingly skilled reader, with many funds of knowledge, who demonstrated great difficultywith the inferential aspects of comprehension. In this study, we provide rationales regard-ing selecting proper assessment batteries to detect those students struggling with higherlevels of comprehension. Furthermore, we also offer ideas on how to facilitate the teachingof inferential skills in a scaffolded manner. Our finding is supported by research in compre-hension instruction which indicates that while strategy instruction is effective, the length ofinstruction does not create effectiveness. Meta-analyses indicate (e.g., Rosenshine, Meister,& Chapman, 1996) that short reading strategy programs of six lessons were commensuratewith longer programs which could include as many as 50 lessons.
We recommend starting inference instruction from relatively simple word-level activ-ities, such as analogies and word games, and quickly moving to more authentic texts. Theteacher can help students make the connections between the levels of text so that studentsunderstand that you can apply the same type of thinking strategy to analogies that you doin comprehending a long text. An important commonality among the four teaching ideaspresented in this study is the emphasis on explicit modeling of meta-cognitive strategiesby tutors and teachers to enable students to think logically while reading.
Although the curriculum was found effective for Steve, there are significant limitationsin this study. First, due to the nature of a highly integrated intervention, it is difficult todetermine what aspects, or extent, that each of the four main teaching activities contributedto Steve’s improvements. Second, additional non-instructional factors, particularly the one-on-one attention as a feature of tutoring, may have contributed to Steve’s improvement.Despite these limitations, all the activities in this study followed a logical progressionfor developing inference-making and adhered to the gradual release of a responsibilitiesmodel (Pearson & Gallagher, 1983). Steve’s gradual development in inferential thinkingfrom each lesson implied that he was becoming a capable self-reader applying his skillsmore naturally.
The current study provides evidence that inferential reading comprehension is ateachable skill which should be explicitly modeled and guided in a logical manner. Theinstructional ideas presented here, while used in a one-on-one tutoring session, can also betranslated to a classroom setting, particularly the modeling component. In fact, the class-room setting provides a richness of experiences that cannot be replicated in a tutoringsituation. For example, the classroom setting would allow for powerful peer-modeling inwhich students can share, via think-alouds, the manner in which they construct meaning.Additionally, through the use of classroom discussions and literature circles, students canfurther practice skills of prediction and reflection, which will deepen and broaden students’comprehension of texts.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ein
dhov
en T
echn
ical
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
0:05
21
Nov
embe
r 20
14
![Page 17: Moving From Explicit to Implicit: A Case Study of Improving Inferential Comprehension](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022020113/5750a8201a28abcf0cc64143/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
140 Y.-F. Yeh et al.
Finally, this article reveals an important subtype of reading difficulty: inferential think-ing in reading comprehension. Through this study, we would like to illustrate for classroomteachers that a well-developed reading ability consists primarily of good decoding andcomprehension abilities. There are students who have excellent decoding skills, adequateknowledge of single words, and skills to locate explicit information, yet may still have dif-ficulty in organizing and weaving together the information they are able to retrieve froma text. Only by ensuring that our students are in possession of comprehensive readingabilities can we prepare them for “reading to learn.”
References
Bear, D. R., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., & Johnston, F. (2004). Words their way: Word study forphonics, vocabulary, and spelling instruction (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/MerrillPrentice Hall.
Bernstein, J. E. (1979). Fiddle with a riddle: Write your own riddles. New York, NY: Dutton.Bloom, B., Engelhardt, M., Furst, E., Hill, W., & Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of educational
objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York,NY: David McKay Company, Inc.
Cain, K. (2003). Text comprehension and its relation to coherence and cohesion in children’s fictionalnarratives. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 21, 335–351.
Cain, K. (2006). Children’s reading comprehension: The role of working memory in normal andimpaired development. In S. J. Pickering (Ed.), Working memory and education (pp. 62–91). SanDiego, CA: Academic Press.
Cain, K. (2007). Syntactic awareness and reading ability: Is there any evidence for a specialrelationship? Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 679–694.
Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. V. (1996). The nature of the relationship between comprehension skill andthe ability to tell a story. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 14, 187–201.
Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. V. (1999). Inference making ability and its relation to comprehension failure.Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 11, 489–503.
Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. V. (2006). Profiles of children with specific reading comprehensiondifficulties. The British Psychological Society, 76, 683–696.
Cain, K., Oakhill, J. V., Barnes, M. A., & Bryant, P. E. (2001). Comprehension skill, inferencemaking ability and their relation to knowledge. Memory and Cognition, 29, 850–859.
Cain, K., Oakhill, J. V., & Bryant, P. E. (2004). Children’s reading comprehension ability: Concurrentprediction by working memory, verbal ability, and component skills. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 96, 31–42.
Cain, K., & Towse, A. S. (2008). To get hold of the wrong end of the stick: Reasons for poor idiomunderstanding in children with reading comprehension difficulties. Journal of Speech, Language,and Hearing Research, 51, 1538–1549.
Cain, K., Towse, A. S., & Knight, R. S. (2009). The development of idiom comprehension: An inves-tigation of semantic and contextual processing skills. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,102, 280–298.
Chall, J. S. (1983). Stages of reading development. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Chall, J. S., & Jacobs, V. A. (2003). Poor children’s fourth-grade slump. American Educator, 27
(14). Retrieved from http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/spring2003/chall.htmlDavey, B. (1983). Think aloud: Modeling the cognitive processes of reading comprehension. Journal
of Reading, 27, 44–47.Dewitz, P., & Dewitz, P. K. (2003). They can read the words, but they can’t understand: Refining
comprehension assessment. The Reading Teacher, 56, 422–435.Dixon, P., LeFevre, J.-A., & Twilley, L. C. (1988). Word knowledge and working memory as
predictors of reading skill. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 465–472.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ein
dhov
en T
echn
ical
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
0:05
21
Nov
embe
r 20
14
![Page 18: Moving From Explicit to Implicit: A Case Study of Improving Inferential Comprehension](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022020113/5750a8201a28abcf0cc64143/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Moving From Explicit to Implicit 141
Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7,155–170.
Gentner, D. (1988). Metaphor as structure mapping: The relational shift. Child Development, 59,47–59.
Gentner, D., & Markman, A. B. (1977). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. AmericanPsychologist, 52, 45–56.
Glynn, S. (2007). Teaching with analogies model. Science and Children, 44, 52–55.Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and
Special Education, 7, 6–10.Hammill, D., & Newcomer, P. L. (1997). Test of language development–intermediate, (TOLD-I:3),
3rd edition. Austin, TX: Pro. Ed.Harp, S. F., & Mayer, R. E. (1997). The role of interest in learning from scientific text and illustra-
tions: On the distinction between emotional interest and cognitive interest. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 89, 92–102.
Harp, S. F., & Mayer, R. E. (1998). How seductive details do their damage: A theory of cognitiveinterest in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 414–434.
Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing, 2, 127–160.Hunt, E., Lunneborg, C., & Lewis, J. (1975). What does it mean to be high verbal? Cognitive
Psychology, 7, 194–227.Kintsch, W. (1988). The use of knowledge in discourse processing: A construction-integration model.
Psychological Review, 95, 163–182.Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.Laing, S. P., & Kamhi, A. G. (2002). The use of think-aloud protocols to compare inferencing abilities
in average and below average readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 436–447.Leach, J. M., Scarborough, H. S., & Rescorla, L. (2003). Late-emerging reading disabilities. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 95, 211–224.Leslie, L., & Caldwell, J. (2006). Qualitative reading inventory-4. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Education.McKenna, M. C., & Stahl, S. A. (2003). Assessment for reading instruction. New York, NY: Guilford
Press.McKenna, M. C., Kear, D. J., & Ellsworth, R. A. (1995). Children’s attitudes toward reading: A
national survey. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 934–956.Miller, G. A. (1988). The challenge of universal literacy. Science, 241, 1293–1299.Morris, D. (2005). The Howard Street tutoring manual: Teaching at-risk readers in the primary
grades (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.Morris, D., Ervin, C., & Conrad, K. (1996). A case study of middle school reading disability. The
Reading Teacher, 49, 368–377.Parker, D. H. (1985). SRA reading laboratory-3a (Rev. ed.). Chicago, IL: Science Research
Associates.Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. C. (1993). The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 8, 317–344.Pinkney, A. D. (2000). Let it shine: Stories of Black women freedom fighters. San Diego, CA:
Harcourt.Readence, J. E., Bean, T. W., & Baldwin, R. S. (1998). Content area reading: An integrated approach.
Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., & Chapman, S. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions: A
review of the interventions studies. Review of Educational Research, 66, 181–221.Rumelhart, D. E., & Abrahamson, A. A. (1973). A model for analogical reasoning. Cognitive
Psychology, 5, 1–28.Rupley, W. H., Willson, V. L., & Nichols, W. D. (1998). Exploration of the developmental compo-
nents contributing to elementary school children’s reading comprehension. Scientific Studies ofReading, 2, 143–158.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ein
dhov
en T
echn
ical
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
0:05
21
Nov
embe
r 20
14
![Page 19: Moving From Explicit to Implicit: A Case Study of Improving Inferential Comprehension](https://reader030.vdocuments.mx/reader030/viewer/2022020113/5750a8201a28abcf0cc64143/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
142 Y.-F. Yeh et al.
Seymour, P. H. K. (1997). Foundations of orthographic development. In C. A. Perfetti, L. Rieben, &M. Fayol (Eds.), Learning to spell (pp. 319–337). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associations.
Seymour, P. H. K. (1999). Cognitive architecture of early reading. In I. Lundberg, F. E. Tonnessen.,& I. Austad (Eds.), Dyslexia: Advances in theory and practice (pp. 59–73). Dordrecht, Holland:Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Smith, F. (1988). Understanding reading (4th ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Association,Inc.
Sobol, D. (1971). Encyclopedia Brown tracks them down. New York, NY: Thomas NelsonPublishers.
Thorndike, R. L. (1973). Reading comprehension in fifteen countries. New York, NY: Wiley.Shaywitz, S. E., Morris, R., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2008). The education of dyslexic children from
childhood to young adulthood. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 451–479.Sideridis, G. D., Mouzaki, A., Simons, P., & Protopapas, A. (2006). Classification of students
with reading comprehension difficulties: The roles of motivation, affect, and psychopathology.Learning Disability Quarterly, 29, 159–180.
Sobol, D. J., & Andrews, G. (1983). Encyclopedia Brown takes the cake! New York, NY: Scholastic.Spear-Swerling, L., & Sternberg, R. J. (1996). Off track: When poor readers become “learning
disabled.” Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Spector, J. E. (2005). How reliable are informal reading inventories? Psychology in the Schools, 42,
593–603.Stebick, D. M., & Dain, J. M. (2007). Comprehension strategies for your K-6 literacy classroom:
Thinking before, during, and after reading. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Steinbergh, J. W. (1999). Mastering metaphor through poetry. Language Arts, 76, 324–331.Tourangeau, R., & Sternberg, R. (1981). Aptness in metaphor. Cognitive Psychology, 13, 27–55.Tourangeau, R., & Sternberg, R. J. (1982). Understanding and appreciating metaphors. Cognition,
11, 203–244.Tovani, C. (2000). I read it, but I don’t get it. New York, NY: Stenhouse Publishers.Trabasso, T., & Magliano, J. P. (1996). How do children understand what they read and what can we
do to help them. In M. Graves, P. van den Broek, & B. Taylor (Eds.), The first R: Every child’sright to read (pp. 160–188). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
U.S. Department of Education. (2009). The nation’s report card reading 2009: National Assessmentof Educational Progress at grades 4 and 8. Retrieved from http://www.isbe.state.il.us/assessment/pdfs/2009/NAEP_reading_nation_rc.pdf
Vacca, R. T., & Vacca, J. L. (2007). Content area reading: Literacy and learning across thecurriculum (9th ed.). New York, NY: Allyn & Bacon.
Warrican, S. J. (2006). Promoting reading amidst repeated failure: Meeting the challenges. The HighSchool Journal, 90, 33–43.
Woodcock, R. W., & Johnson, M. B. (1990). Woodcock-Johnson test of achievement: Standard andsupplemental batteries. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.
Yuill, N. (1998). Reading and riddling: The role of riddle appreciation in understanding andimproving poor text comprehension in children. Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive, 17, 313–342.
Zipke, M. (2008). Teaching metalinguistic awareness and reading comprehension with riddles. TheReading Teacher, 62, 128–137.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ein
dhov
en T
echn
ical
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
0:05
21
Nov
embe
r 20
14